Reading mode: Light Dark

What is wrong with these?

Go to last post
G

Gary Kaye

Forum Enthusiast
Messages
285
Reaction score
0
Location
Agoura Hills, CA, US
I shot a wedding for a friend last night and these pictures on my Fuji S1 came out pretty bad. I am new at digital photography and would like to know what I did wrong? Any help :-)

The Flash is a Metz 40 AF-4N

Thanks,

Gary

ISO - 1600
Exposure - Auto
White Balance - Incandescent Light
Shutter 1/90 F8.0



ISO - 1600
Exposure - Auto
White Balance - Incandescent Light
Shutter 1/90 F8.0

 
Gary,

The camera and flash did what they could do. I think you expected a single flash to give even illumination at all distances. Physics doesn't work that way. As distance from the light source doubles, the available light decreases to a quarter of what is was at the closer distance. That's 2 stops difference on a subject at twenty feet from the light compared to a subject 10 feet away.

Add to that the problem of mixed lighting, and you have a disaster in the making. This has nothing to do with digital. Film has the same problems.

Steve
gary k said:
I shot a wedding for a friend last night and these pictures on my
Fuji S1 came out pretty bad. I am new at digital photography and
would like to know what I did wrong? Any help :-)

The Flash is a Metz 40 AF-4N

Thanks,

Gary
Click to expand...
 
wouldn't the obvious answer be the fact that your camera was at f8.0?

you would need a whollla lot of light to effectively use f8.0 and get bright exposures...
Steve Dean said:
Add to that the problem of mixed lighting, and you have a disaster
in the making. This has nothing to do with digital. Film has the
same problems.

Steve
gary k said:
I shot a wedding for a friend last night and these pictures on my
Fuji S1 came out pretty bad. I am new at digital photography and
would like to know what I did wrong? Any help :-)

The Flash is a Metz 40 AF-4N

Thanks,

Gary
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Gary, I agree with what has been already said, especially the F8 aperture being too restrictive for your strobe. Actually, @ 1600 ISO, it may not have been too bad tho... These pics are really too warm. I think I would not have selected incandescent wb in this case. I think I would have opted for a wb more toward daylight (5500, 6500) with your flash in use. Tough to call because I wasn't there to see the light level(s). Regards, Jim N'AZ
gary k said:
I shot a wedding for a friend last night and these pictures on my
Fuji S1 came out pretty bad. I am new at digital photography and
would like to know what I did wrong? Any help :-)

The Flash is a Metz 40 AF-4N

Thanks,

Gary

ISO - 1600
Exposure - Auto
White Balance - Incandescent Light
Shutter 1/90 F8.0



ISO - 1600
Exposure - Auto
White Balance - Incandescent Light
Shutter 1/90 F8.0

Click to expand...
 
There is some thing strange in your picture:
You said You used flash with WB for incandescent light (tungsten)

In your pictures we can see that the first plane get the ligt from your flash and the background from existing light (tungsten).

If your camera was setted on wb for tungsten the first plan in your pictures should be bluish because the light of flash is 5500 k and tungsten is 3200.

In your pictures the colors of first plans are correct and the back ground is yellow so in my opinion your camera was not set on incandescent light or you had a strong filter on your flash.

I think your camera wB was on dayligt or flash

Any way if you set the wb to 6500 (like Jim said)you wil get a more warm picture and not a cooler one.

Lorenzo
Jim N' AZ said:
gary k said:
I shot a wedding for a friend last night and these pictures on my
Fuji S1 came out pretty bad. I am new at digital photography and
would like to know what I did wrong? Any help :-)

The Flash is a Metz 40 AF-4N

Thanks,

Gary

ISO - 1600
Exposure - Auto
White Balance - Incandescent Light
Shutter 1/90 F8.0



ISO - 1600
Exposure - Auto
White Balance - Incandescent Light
Shutter 1/90 F8.0

Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Gary:

A whole bunch of things are going on here that you need to pay attention to:
  • If I'm not mistaken, the N60 body on which the S1 is based only does TTL flash to ISO 400.
  • I'm not sure what the GN of the Metz flash is, but let's say it's roughly equivalent of the SB-28. Even with the flash head set to cover 24mm, you'd have a GN of somewhere around 387! Since Aperture = GN / Distance, and you used f/8, the flash would fire at full power at something like 48 feet. It doesn't look like you're very far from your subjects, so the flash likely fired at well under full power.
  • Since flash fired at so low a level, the bluish light from it generally didn't override the room light, so you were probably right in setting incandescent (however, I would have set white balance manually to the room lighting; most camera manufacturers are setting their incandescent values too high).
  • Even with the flash firing at a low level, I see flash overexposure (most notably the white pedestal in the first photo, but also some of the highlights on the girls in the second). It's hard to say why, as it could be one of several things (ISO 1600, flash couldn't fire at any lower level, highly reflective object, etc.).
  • It doesn't appear that you were in Slow Sync mode. In general, if you're trying to balance ambient lighting with flash, you want to use flash as a fill source, not a primary source. While Nikon advertises their advanced TTL modes as "balanced fill flash" modes, this is a bit misleading (it takes me many pages in my upcoming book to describe why, so I won't try here).
In the situation you were in, you need to make a choice: flash as primary light source or flash as a fill source. Given the way you framed your pictures, the answer would be fill. In that case, I would have:
  • Picked ISO 400 (see page 126 of the S1 manual: flash isn't supported at faster ISO values).
  • Set Slow Sync
  • Manually metered white balance
  • Set flash to -1.0 to -1.7 stops flash compensation (fill!)
  • Taken test shots with and without flash to verify settings are working as expected.
  • Given that you were in mixed lighting, I would also have taken one picture with a gray card in the subject position. Later, you could use that gray to remove color casts in Photoshop.
Thom Hogan
author, The Nikon Flash Guide
http://www.bythom.com
 
I am sorry if I insist but there is something which I don't understand in the first picture we can see that there are tow kind of lighting in first plan there is a light which look correct (look the jaket of the person on the right which is gray)

On the top of the picture there is lamp which is certenley a TUNGSTEN lamp and in the picture it looks very warm let's say orange.

My question is how is possible that the camera was set for incandescent light? in this case the lamp on the top should be not so warm and, as I said before the first plan lighted by the flash scould be bluish.

Tom Hogan wrote
Since flash fired at so low a level, the bluish light from it
Thom Hogan said:
generally didn't override the room light, so you were probably
right in setting incandescent (however, I would have set white
balance manually to the room lighting; most camera manufacturers
are setting their incandescent values too high).
Click to expand...
an after
Even with the flash firing at a low level, I see flash
Thom Hogan said:
overexposure (most notably the white pedestal in the first photo,
but also some of the highlights on the girls in the second). It's
hard to say why, as it could be one of several things (ISO 1600,
flash couldn't fire at any lower level, highly reflective object,
etc.).
Click to expand...
there is a contradiction if the flash over exposed the first plan (and I think you are right) there schould be some bluish cast if the camera wb was set for tungsten.
Am I missing something?

Lorenzo
Thom Hogan said:
Gary:

A whole bunch of things are going on here that you need to pay
attention to:
  • If I'm not mistaken, the N60 body on which the S1 is based only
does TTL flash to ISO 400.
  • I'm not sure what the GN of the Metz flash is, but let's say it's
roughly equivalent of the SB-28. Even with the flash head set to
cover 24mm, you'd have a GN of somewhere around 387! Since Aperture
= GN / Distance, and you used f/8, the flash would fire at full
power at something like 48 feet. It doesn't look like you're very
far from your subjects, so the flash likely fired at well under
full power.
  • >
  • Even with the flash firing at a low level, I see flash
overexposure (most notably the white pedestal in the first photo,
but also some of the highlights on the girls in the second). It's
hard to say why, as it could be one of several things (ISO 1600,
flash couldn't fire at any lower level, highly reflective object,
etc.).
  • It doesn't appear that you were in Slow Sync mode. In general, if
you're trying to balance ambient lighting with flash, you want to
use flash as a fill source, not a primary source. While Nikon
advertises their advanced TTL modes as "balanced fill flash" modes,
this is a bit misleading (it takes me many pages in my upcoming
book to describe why, so I won't try here).

In the situation you were in, you need to make a choice: flash as
primary light source or flash as a fill source. Given the way you
framed your pictures, the answer would be fill. In that case, I
would have:
  • Picked ISO 400 (see page 126 of the S1 manual: flash isn't
supported at faster ISO values).
  • Set Slow Sync
  • Manually metered white balance
  • Set flash to -1.0 to -1.7 stops flash compensation (fill!)
  • Taken test shots with and without flash to verify settings are
working as expected.
  • Given that you were in mixed lighting, I would also have taken
one picture with a gray card in the subject position. Later, you
could use that gray to remove color casts in Photoshop.

Thom Hogan
author, The Nikon Flash Guide
http://www.bythom.com
Click to expand...
 
To everyone who commented:

Thanks for all the input on my pictures. I will take all the advice and digest it. I'll try what everyone suggested and adjust my ISO settings and play with the White Balance. While at the wedding, since I was indoors under incandescent light, I thought that would be the best setting. Since the room was dark, I thought an ISO of 1600 would make things lighter. I didn't realize the limitations on the flash.

Thanks,

Gary
Lorenzo ceva said:
Tom Hogan wrote
Since flash fired at so low a level, the bluish light from it
Lorenzo ceva said:
generally didn't override the room light, so you were probably
right in setting incandescent (however, I would have set white
balance manually to the room lighting; most camera manufacturers
are setting their incandescent values too high).
Click to expand...
an after
Even with the flash firing at a low level, I see flash
Lorenzo ceva said:
overexposure (most notably the white pedestal in the first photo,
but also some of the highlights on the girls in the second). It's
hard to say why, as it could be one of several things (ISO 1600,
flash couldn't fire at any lower level, highly reflective object,
etc.).
Click to expand...
there is a contradiction if the flash over exposed the first plan
(and I think you are right) there schould be some bluish cast if
the camera wb was set for tungsten.
Am I missing something?

Lorenzo
Thom Hogan said:
Gary:

A whole bunch of things are going on here that you need to pay
attention to:
  • If I'm not mistaken, the N60 body on which the S1 is based only
does TTL flash to ISO 400.
  • I'm not sure what the GN of the Metz flash is, but let's say it's
roughly equivalent of the SB-28. Even with the flash head set to
cover 24mm, you'd have a GN of somewhere around 387! Since Aperture
= GN / Distance, and you used f/8, the flash would fire at full
power at something like 48 feet. It doesn't look like you're very
far from your subjects, so the flash likely fired at well under
full power.
  • >
  • Even with the flash firing at a low level, I see flash
overexposure (most notably the white pedestal in the first photo,
but also some of the highlights on the girls in the second). It's
hard to say why, as it could be one of several things (ISO 1600,
flash couldn't fire at any lower level, highly reflective object,
etc.).
  • It doesn't appear that you were in Slow Sync mode. In general, if
you're trying to balance ambient lighting with flash, you want to
use flash as a fill source, not a primary source. While Nikon
advertises their advanced TTL modes as "balanced fill flash" modes,
this is a bit misleading (it takes me many pages in my upcoming
book to describe why, so I won't try here).

In the situation you were in, you need to make a choice: flash as
primary light source or flash as a fill source. Given the way you
framed your pictures, the answer would be fill. In that case, I
would have:
  • Picked ISO 400 (see page 126 of the S1 manual: flash isn't
supported at faster ISO values).
  • Set Slow Sync
  • Manually metered white balance
  • Set flash to -1.0 to -1.7 stops flash compensation (fill!)
  • Taken test shots with and without flash to verify settings are
working as expected.
  • Given that you were in mixed lighting, I would also have taken
one picture with a gray card in the subject position. Later, you
could use that gray to remove color casts in Photoshop.

Thom Hogan
author, The Nikon Flash Guide
http://www.bythom.com
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
It is hard to beat getting the best possible exposure the first time. You can certainly could/should shoot at lower ISO, but you will give up on depth of field. But in a situation with a lot of different colored light sources it will be hard to get it right all the time.

The picture you posted appeared to me to have way too much Red and was under-exposed. I did the following using Curves (I moved The upper right corner of the RED curve down 1/2 stop/box and boost the center of the curves of Blue and green a little.

http://www.fototime.com/ {26EABCE3-0A51-4A3C-A892-537C4B0438E6} picture.JPG

A more automatic way (I picked up in one of the forums) to do color balance in PS is to find something that should be roughly neutral gray in the image. I created a new layer and totally fill the layer with layer with 50% (128) gray. Then I hid this gray layer and in the case of this photo I took an eyedropper sample of the white sash in an area were it was not white. I then did brought back the 50% gray layer, set did a FILL with COLOR option. Then I did an image/adjust/invert on that layer and then set the layer mode to SOFT LIGHT. What this in affect does is subtract out (due to the invert) the wrong coloring (trying to make the “neutral gray” in the photograph gray.

Karl
 
Lorenzo ceva said:
I am sorry if I insist but there is something which I don't
understand in the first picture we can see that there are tow kind
of lighting in first plan there is a light which look correct (look
the jaket of the person on the right which is gray)
On the top of the picture there is lamp which is certenley a
TUNGSTEN lamp and in the picture it looks very warm let's say
orange.
My question is how is possible that the camera was set for
incandescent light? in this case the lamp on the top should be not
so warm and, as I said before the first plan lighted by the flash
scould be bluish.
Click to expand...
I had a similar question, but really don't know how to answer that. It's clear to me that the flash fired at a very low level, though, so it very well may not have added enough light to offset the warm color balance.
Lorenzo ceva said:
there is a contradiction if the flash over exposed the first plan
(and I think you are right) there schould be some bluish cast if
the camera wb was set for tungsten.
Am I missing something?
Click to expand...
Let's say that the first pedestal was correctly lit by the room lighting. It would appear yellow-red due to the warm lighting. Add a bit of flash. The pedestal washes out to white (you can't have a color cast if the pixel is 255, 255, 255!) and overall, the pedestal has now whitened considerably. That seems consistent with his settings.

Also, notice how virtually all digital cameras don't handle automatic white balance well for anything other than sun. If you examine the response curves of most CCDs to lightwave frequencies, you'll find that they are least sensitive in the blue range (say 400-500nm). With light that is mostly at the other end of the spectrum (e.g., incandescent), the blue photosites aren't getting very much info to go on--noise becomes a factor. Adding just a bit of blue (e.g., a low-level flash) may not have as much influence on the colors as you think it should. I'm still experimenting with the stable of cameras I've got, but none of them seem to react to light exactly the way I'd expect when the color temperature of light starts to drop down below 4000K.

Thom Hogan
author, The Nikon Field Guide
http://www.bythom.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top