BrianO wrote:
Unless the veil is already blown out, adding flash to an exisiting light exposure must make it brighter; it's simple physics.
not really. if the sun is brighter then your flash, adding that flash light will only lift shadows.
you will not make any light circle with LED flashlight on the wall where your car headlights are pointing. same with reflector
also photog should dress black, i always wear black dress in harsh sunlight because it easy up eyes of couple when looking at me (also helps having black instead of white lenses, but here i am just trolling :-) )
My preference is not to use fill flash. If I literally had to, I'd look for an off camera flash if possible as I really don't like that "bright spec in the eyes" look.
I would look to position myself so I could achieve the best look and then use fill light in post while pulling down the shadows to keep the shot looking reasonably natural. I'd also shoot in RAW at ISO100 - lifting the shadows wouldn't be a problem in my experience..
When looking at these outside images, keep in mind that these photographers are using something other than technique: experience and skill.
When I'm outside, I use far less flash now than I did when I started. Yesterday I photographed a 5 year old girl at the local Public Gardens, 10:30am and not a cloud in the sky. Only afterwards did I realize that I hadn't used any flash, not even a touch of fill flash. With practice and observation we get better at seeing where the good light is.
Now, at a wedding ceremony you don't have that kind of control, but the concept still holds true. I use far less flash, if any, at outside ceremonies. A combination of framing, angles, and how to use exposure and post processing together. I can't even describe what I do, it just is better than 5 years ago.
Kittyk wrote:
...if the sun is brighter then your flash, adding that flash light will only lift shadows.
you will not make any light circle with LED flashlight on the wall where your car headlights are pointing.
I don't think that's correct. You may not be able to see the difference due to the perceptual threshold, but I think it would be brighter nontheless.
For example, let's say your headlights are 100 lumens and your LED is 1 lumen; you may not be able to tell the difference between 100 lumens and 101 lumens, but there is a difference.
Because of the non-linear nature of brightness, adding flash to ambient will have a more visible effect on shadows than on highlights, but I don't think it would be accurate to say that adding flash has no effect on highlights.
i said it will have no effect on highlights if you keep flash power under power of the sun.
and no, you are wrong. This is basics of physics, energy and flows: 100lm + 1lm is not 101 but 100lm. Same as with noise and other flows. 100db + 50db is not 150db (or you would die from loudness near ant-hill),
Try it your self.
It is also reason why you cannot stack flashes or lights to get more power. You will only get better coverage at given power (when aimed differently) but never more brightness at one direction.
I believe you are correct in what you're pointing out. The first extra flash on that bracket gives you another stop. The NEXT TWO then give you another stop. So those 3 flahses are getting you two stops of extra light. FOUR MORE would get you yet another stop. And on and on, assuming they're all the same model of flash.
I believe you are correct in what you're pointing out. The first extra flash on that bracket gives you another stop. The NEXT TWO then give you another stop. So those 3 flahses are getting you two stops of extra light. FOUR MORE would get you yet another stop. And on and on, assuming they're all the same model of flash.
Rotello wrote:
...The first extra flash on that bracket gives you another stop. The NEXT TWO then give you another stop. So those 3 flahses are getting you two stops of extra light. FOUR MORE would get you yet another stop. And on and on, assuming they're all the same model of flash.
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong.
That's exactly correct.
Since each stop of light represents a doubling of intensity, the progression for adding lights would be 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, etc. to get increases of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc. stops.
In the example shown above, of a quad-rigged Brewer Bracket used as a light stick, each flash could be turned down to 1/4 power for decreased recycling time and heat build-up, while achieving the same power as a single flash on full power; or, each could be left at full power for a 2-stop increase in power over a single flash.
There are, obviously, cost and complexity issues that may make continuing to add flash units beyond a certain point impractical (although Joe McNally effectively pushes the envelope), but the principle is simple: light is additive in its effect.
(And, speaking as a former member of a large a capella choir, I can assure Kittyk that sound is additive, too.)
actually not. you get better coverage. It is like putting more LEDs in the LED bulb and pointing them at slightly different direction, you will never get brighter spot then from single LED, but you get wider coverage.
all what that huge flash mount does is, making bigger light source, covering better area, which is especially needed with modifiers, you actually get also little more power in single spot because all flashes are a bit different (duration, latency).
Reason why you cannot replace 1kWs flash with three speedlights is, that you would have to fire them in sequence.
And about sound: same thing. you get better coverage because sound is directional and there is lot of listeners.
Kittyk wrote:
actually not. you get better coverage. It is like putting more LEDs in the LED bulb and pointing them at slightly different direction, you will never get brighter spot then from single LED, but you get wider coverage.
...And about sound: same thing. you get better coverage because sound is directional and there is lot of listeners.
If I put a flash meter in a single location and aim one, two, and four flash units at that meter, I will get three different readings of light intensity when all are fired at their maximum power. I know, because I have done it.
Similarly, if I sit in one seat at a concert hall, a full choir will be louder than a soloist when all are singing at their maximum loudness. I know, because I have done it.
Kittyk wrote:
...you actually get also little more power in single spot because all flashes are a bit different (duration, latency).
Reason why you cannot replace 1kWs flash with three speedlights is, that you would have to fire them in sequence.
Then how do you explain the increased brightness when using multiple continuous lights?
Take, for example, this unit -- the Interfit Super Cool-Lite 9:
This has nothing to do with changing the coverage; it's about changing the brightness.
"Latency" and "duration" of various flashes also wouldn't explain the consistent results of adding lights. Adding one light always gives almost exactly a 1 f-stop increase, adding two more always gives almost exactly another 1 f-stop, and so on. It's consistent and predictable.
I tell you what: get a flash meter and four flash units and do the three-step sequence described here. Then, post the results if they back up your statement. If not, stop posting it; repeating yourself will not change the facts.
