Hide Takahashi wrote:
Nice shootings! The model is beautiful and the location is nice. I got into the same situation before but I did some study about shooting into the sun before my actual shoot and I also used Einstein 640 and a 64" Parabolic umbrella. I was told by a known pro who specifically shoots with a beauty dish that I always aim the beauty dish( or light modifier) toward the direction of light.
I thought that was a good advice.
Like you did, I wanted to shoot near wide open so that I could get a good bokeh but the sun was behind the model so the only way I could do was to use a ND filter ( like you did) and I had already purchased a Sigh-Ray Veri ND ( 9 stop) filter for this purpose. Expensive but it was a very good investment. From my experience,3 stop ND filter isn't good enough to diffuse the sun especially when you use quite wide aperture like f2.2. With your set up,I think you need to stop down more or you'll need a stronger ND filter.
The last one is my favorite but I think you should reshoot the first one with a different approach. I'm sure you'll get a better result.
Seriously man that is the best advice I have received. Thank you so much for taking the time to write all that down and tell it to me. I'll try to stop down a bit more next time, even with the ND filter on.
ross.thomas wrote:
Seriously man that is the best advice I have received. Thank you so much for taking the time to write all that down and tell it to me. I'll try to stop down a bit more next time, even with the ND filter on.
Wait, I'm sorry...what's the advice? Stopping down? Using an ND filter? Shooting your light "towards the direction of light (sun)"? Not sure exactly what that last one means but if it means what I think it does...aiming your light directly back at the sun...that's what is causing most people to not like your images, for their "flashy" look. Note that the only image that seems to get repeated positive comments is the last one, where your light is not cross-lighting your subject but is closer to on-axis with the sun.
Also, on the use of ND filters, did the previous poster note that you're using a Fuji and have the ability to shoot at way past the 1/200th normal sync speed of most DSLR's? That alone already gives you more than 2 full stops of advantage. Combined with the 3 stop ND and you're more than 5 stops better off. Seems to me your exposure overall is not the issue here. You've retained a lot of detail in the sky, except for the area where the sun is...and to not blow that out would take a fair bit more stopping down (and a lot more flash power to then expose your subject).
As I said, I'm not sure exactly what advice you got there that was so helpful. What did I miss?
Inga is completely correct. You stated that you " Shot with the Fuji X100S at iso 200, f/2.2, 1/1000 shutter speed, with the built in 3 stop ND filter turned on.". That means you should stop down by 2 to 5 f-stops (equivalent to a neutral density filter) to reduce the sun spot flare. Also, you should significantly increase your flash power - which can be done by removing the sock from the beauty dish, alternatively using a simple silver reflector rather than the beauty dish, an possibly moving the flash closer to the subject. If you have a second flash, you might shoot with two flashes in parallel ... that would give you one more stop of light.
The neutral density filters cut down the exposure for both the sun and also for the effect of the flash. You really need to change the ratio of light between the sun and flash - which has nothing to do with ND filters.
The real issue, as Inga points out is "and a lot more flash power to then expose your subject"
Inga wrote:
Wait, I'm sorry...what's the advice? Stopping down? Using an ND filter? Shooting your light "towards the direction of light (sun)"? Not sure exactly what that last one means but if it means what I think it does...aiming your light directly back at the sun...that's what is causing most people to not like your images, for their "flashy" look. Note that the only image that seems to get repeated positive comments is the last one, where your light is not cross-lighting your subject but is closer to on-axis with the sun.
Also, on the use of ND filters, did the previous poster note that you're using a Fuji and have the ability to shoot at way past the 1/200th normal sync speed of most DSLR's? That alone already gives you more than 2 full stops of advantage. Combined with the 3 stop ND and you're more than 5 stops better off. Seems to me your exposure overall is not the issue here. You've retained a lot of detail in the sky, except for the area where the sun is...and to not blow that out would take a fair bit more stopping down (and a lot more flash power to then expose your subject).
As I said, I'm not sure exactly what advice you got there that was so helpful. What did I miss?
When you shoot into the sun using a strobe and if you do it right, you get a dramatic look. Some people like it, some don't. Some people would say they prefer so called "natural" look and I'm not against it nor I'm a naturalist. I just want to get a good image. Ross did everything he did to get it right and I think he got some great images but to my taste, especially in #1,the sun sill overpowers the strobe and I had to squint my eyes a little or I had to change the angle of the monitor especially because the model is wearing a white shirt. That's how powerful the sun is.
But this is where your taste comes in.
I think he wants to improve his image so I gave him my advice though you don't think it's an advice at all. That's your opinion. So whether you like my advice or not I will continue to give him my advices.
I assume he doesn't have a light meter but he can meter the ambient light using his camera.
So.. if the ambient light metered at f11,/1/500 ,that's the f stop you'll need to set it in your camera but you want the subject a little brighter than the background so you want to open up f stop a little like f 10 or f9 but the shutter speed remains the same. The shutter speed controls the ambient light and the f stop controls the flash exposure or the exposure on the subject. You adjust the strobe power to get f 11,10 or 9 on the subject exposure depending on the look you like. But in your case, you wanted to use f2.2. That is 4 1/2 f stops brighter than the ambient light. And if the ambient light metered at f16, then the f stop gap between the ambient light and the f stop you want to use ( f2.2)would be greater.
And this IS the problem.
Your camera's 3 stop ND filter simply isn't strong enough to balance the ambient light. Ideally, you would want to use f 4 with the camera's 3 stop ND filter and adjust the strobe power and the shutter speed to get the image to your taste.
Hide Takahashi wrote:
...
I assume he doesn't have a light meter but he can meter the ambient light using his camera.
So.. if the ambient light metered at f11,/1/500 ,that's the f stop you'll need to set it in your camera but you want the subject a little brighter than the background so you want to open up f stop a little like f 10 or f9 but the shutter speed remains the same. The shutter speed controls the ambient light and the f stop controls the flash exposure or the exposure on the subject. You adjust the strobe power to get f 11,10 or 9 on the subject exposure depending on the look you like. But in your case, you wanted to use f2.2. That is 4 1/2 f stops brighter than the ambient light. And if the ambient light metered at f16, then the f stop gap between the ambient light and the f stop you want to use ( f2.2)would be greater.
Much of this does make sense, in particular considering the camera he is using -- what you say is true if you are working with with low shutter speeds or focal plane shutters that x-sync between 1/200 and 1/300 second. . He is shooting at 1/1000 second shutter speed. At full power, the Einstein gives a rated exposure time of 1/568 seconed. That means the camera shutter will cut a bit of the flash power if he shoots at 1/1000 sec Effectively, the shutter "controls" both the flash and the same time. If he shoots at 1/2000 sec, the flash exposure will be reduced even more.
Your camera's 3 stop ND filter simply isn't strong enough to balance the ambient light. Ideally, you would want to use f 4 with the camera's 3 stop ND filter and adjust the strobe power and the shutter speed to get the image to your taste.
I am curious why you think the ND filter can be used to balance flash/ambient light. The ND filter affects both the flash and background sun-lighting in identical ways. If you put on a 3 stop ND filter, you have the effect of reducing both the flash and the background by 3 stops - just like reducing the aperture by 3 stops. . Since the shot was at F2.2, he still has at least 4 or more f-stops he can use to reduce exposure. Only if further background exposure reduction is required will he need to use the ND filter. (often the ND filter is used to allow wider f-stops that give shallow DOF ... I don't think that is the case here -- the pictures indicate "pretty good" background sharpness in spite of using F2.2 on the camera).
The ONLY real way, with the equipment he stated he is using, to get a different balance between flash and sun is to increase flash power by what ever means possible.
Hide Takahashi wrote:
When you shoot into the sun using a strobe and if you do it right, you get a dramatic look. Some people like it, some don't. Some people would say they prefer so called "natural" look and I'm not against it nor I'm a naturalist. I just want to get a good image. Ross did everything he did to get it right and I think he got some great images but to my taste, especially in #1,the sun sill overpowers the strobe and I had to squint my eyes a little or I had to change the angle of the monitor especially because the model is wearing a white shirt. That's how powerful the sun is.
But this is where your taste comes in.
I think he wants to improve his image so I gave him my advice though you don't think it's an advice at all. That's your opinion. So whether you like my advice or not I will continue to give him my advices.
I have no issue with everyone contributing their ideas and advice to the OPs request. I actually just wanted to know exactly what part of your feedback he found so helpful. It wasn't about liking or not liking your advice...I was trying to understand what the key take-away points were. I agree that the overall approach is very much going to be a taste thing, and I actually like dramatically lit images, when they are done well. I think that's what we're trying to get to...how does one shoot this type of image well. Obviously peoples taste on what is considered "well done" is going to vary. So let everyone put their advice forward and hopefully we all learn something new for our next shoot. That's all I was trying to understand from your advice...if there was something that I had missed that I could apply to my next shoot. Seeking clarification as to what the OP found so helpful, because I seemed to have missed it.
tonyfield wrote:
...
(often the ND filter is used to allow wider f-stops that give shallow DOF ... I don't think that is the case here -- the pictures indicate "pretty good" background sharpness in spite of using F2.2 on the camera).
The ONLY real way, with the equipment he stated he is using, to get a different balance between flash and sun is to increase flash power by what ever means possible.
I was talking about shooting wide open with his camera since he used f2.2. You're right in that a ND filter can not balance the ambient light but it's necessary to use it to get a balanced exposure on the subject when you shoot into the sun wide open using a strobe.
tonyfield wrote:
Much of this does make sense, in particular considering the camera he is using -- what you say is true if you are working with with low shutter speeds or focal plane shutters that x-sync between 1/200 and 1/300 second. . He is shooting at 1/1000 second shutter speed. At full power, the Einstein gives a rated exposure time of 1/568 seconed. That means the camera shutter will cut a bit of the flash power if he shoots at 1/1000 sec Effectively, the shutter "controls" both the flash and the same time. If he shoots at 1/2000 sec, the flash exposure will be reduced even more.
I am curious why you think the ND filter can be used to balance flash/ambient light. The ND filter affects both the flash and background sun-lighting in identical ways. If you put on a 3 stop ND filter, you have the effect of reducing both the flash and the background by 3 stops - just like reducing the aperture by 3 stops. . Since the shot was at F2.2, he still has at least 4 or more f-stops he can use to reduce exposure. Only if further background exposure reduction is required will he need to use the ND filter. (often the ND filter is used to allow wider f-stops that give shallow DOF ... I don't think that is the case here -- the pictures indicate "pretty good" background sharpness in spite of using F2.2 on the camera).
The ONLY real way, with the equipment he stated he is using, to get a different balance between flash and sun is to increase flash power by what ever means possible.
Interesting point about f2.2...there does seem to be a lot of DOF for such a wide aperture. Is that because of the focal length and the crop factor of the camera, or is it the way the camera handles the in-built ND filter? I don't know much about these cameras, but I would have thought I'd see a lot less DOF if I shot this on my 5DIII with a 35mm at f/2.2.
Yes, if the OP wants to change the ratio to make the background even darker, more flash power seems the only option. Given that further shortening the shutter speed (if that is even possible) would reduce the effectiveness of the strobe due to the duration issue you mentioned. So options are: remove the sock, move the strobe closer (and possibly into frame and clone it out later), add another strobe, or use a different (and more efficient) modifier, that would make harder shadows which the OP wants to avoid. Purely theoretical, if the flash duration thing is an issue already, would slowing the shutter speed to 1/500th (or 1/400th) and stopping down the aperture accordingly perhaps improve the situation. I'm thinking the OP would need to stop the aperture down more clicks than the clicks required to get to the right shutter speed because the full force of the flash would be captured on the sensor now. Probably only going to be 1/3rd to 1/2 stop difference.
I guess this comes back to the question of whether one would actually want to have an image where the sun is in the frame but the subject is lit by another light source that is actually brighter than the sun. From what I'm seeing the current setup (last shot excluded) the only shadow is being cast by the strobe...which in my opinion is where you've hit the "overpowering the sun" mark. As soon as you no longer see a shadow from the sun and your subject is 'correctly' exposed, how much brighter do you need to go? Unless you're going for a night-time in the day-time look.
Everyone, thank you so much for the input. I've really enjoyed reading through it all and seeing your different take on how I can take better images. It's comments like these that make me a better photographer.
