Reading mode: Light Dark

In defence of the FL-36

Go to last post
Your "backwards bounce" flash methodology assumes that you're working in a relatively small room with light colored walls and ceilings.

I generally find in small rooms this kind of lighting can occasionally be pleasing, given off-white walls and ceiling, but it consumes a lot of flash power and doesn't work well in larger rooms.

Godfrey
 
I agree with the OP, I love my FL-36(R) and am tempted to buy a second one. Recycle times have almost never been an issue.

I'm also tempted by the FL-50R to have some more 'punch', but the price is a little high to justify as a second flash.
 
Godfrey said:
Your "backwards bounce" flash methodology assumes that you're working
in a relatively small room with light colored walls and ceilings.
Click to expand...
I find that bounce flash is practical in most indoor situations. When it doesn't, I usually prefer to use ambient light rather than use direct flash. If I have to choose between noise and bad light, I'll almost always prefer the former. I'll only use direct flash if I know that the picture is only used for documenting something and that aesthetic or artistic aspects are irrelevant. In these cases, direct flash is an easy (lazy) solution.
Godfrey said:
I generally find in small rooms this kind of lighting can
occasionally be pleasing, given off-white walls and ceiling, but it
consumes a lot of flash power and doesn't work well in larger rooms.
Click to expand...
Using a wider aperture and/or higher ISO frequently solves this problems. When it's not enough, ambient light is the way to go (unless one is alergic to noise).

As for color, if you shoot RAW you can usually fix things later.

Prog.
 
What I have learned, aside from getting the settings right on my FL-36, is that with the slow recycle, you only get one chance for a shot if the scene is changing. Miss it and while several seconds seems short, it can be an eternity as that pretty smile passes out of your field of view forever.
 
I would never consider "shooting RAW because I can fix things later".

I also prefer not to use direct flash, but there are times when it is necessary. That said, the "whole room bounce ambient" that your backward bounce implies is only occasionally the right choice for my flash photography.

G
 
I used it in both semi-direct high speed sync for fill and as a manual trigger flash for slave actuation to a stand mounted side-light flash (a Sunpak 383 with LumiQuest Mini-SoftBox). 270 portrait exposures in an outdoors park and haven't exhausted the fresh set of AA Lithiums yet.

Its recycle speed was never a problem. It worked flawlessly.

Flash is so easy, manual or automatic, when you're doing digital capture. Two quick test snaps and exposure is dialed in, then shoot away. Amazing.

The Oly 50-200 did a splendid job too. :-)

Godfrey
 
Godfrey said:
I would never consider "shooting RAW because I can fix things later".
Click to expand...
I would never accept bad lighting as an alternative to investing some more effort to get good one. I'm only using direct flash when I'm in a lazy mood, luckily I'm usually not.
Godfrey said:
I also prefer not to use direct flash, but there are times when it is
necessary. That said, the "whole room bounce ambient" that your
backward bounce implies is only occasionally the right choice for my
flash photography.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, we all have different needs and preferences.

Prog.
 
When taking shots of my children in a barn I had a choice between ISO-1600 and using direct flash. Even the FL-50 would have been useless bounced off the high and dark brown roof. The ideal would have been an umbrella with a photographically useful inside surface, but which was also useful in the rain (plenty of that here recently) and didn't look like specialist photo kit.
 
Well, I have found a way to not only make bounced flash look good, but fast enough as well.

Auto mode does indeed make the flash recycle fast enough, even when bounced. I still found the shadows too harsh though, but two things fixed this: the wide angle diffusor, and the E-330's built-in flash. Together, all these things make for beautifully balanced lighting. Plus the diffusor also fixed the vignetting I got at 14mm with the FL-36 alone.

I have discovered yet another reason why the E-330 is such a great camera - with its built-in flash filling the shadows cast by the bounce flash, I have been able to get the best of all worlds, instead of having to choose between harsh lighting and harsh shadows. I'm seriously considering getting another of these little gems as a backup!
 
So here it is again. :-)

I have found a way to not only make bounced flash look good, but fast enough as well.

Auto mode does indeed make the flash recycle fast enough, even when bounced. I still found the shadows too harsh though, but two things fixed this: the wide angle diffusor, and the E-330's built-in flash. Together, all these things make for beautifully balanced lighting. Plus the diffusor also fixed the vignetting I got at 14mm with the FL-36 alone.

I have discovered yet another reason why the E-330 is such a great camera - with its built-in flash filling the shadows cast by the bounce flash, I have been able to get the best of all worlds, instead of having to choose between harsh lighting and harsh shadows. I'm seriously considering getting another of these little gems as a backup!
 
If you're getting harsh shadows with bounce flash, you're using it incorrectly. Try swiveling it backwards.

Prog.
 
Prognathous said:
If you're getting harsh shadows with bounce flash, you're using it
incorrectly. Try swiveling it backwards.

Prog.
Click to expand...
Or include a 'bounce card' in the setup.
 
Mark Thornton said:
When the subject is too far away for the internal flash. OK the
resulting lighting is harsh, but sometimes anything is better than
nothing or something blurred beyond recognition.
Click to expand...
Yep, such as say a high school graduation.

Also shooting outdoors, you don't have a ceiling to bounce off of, and often times using FP-TTL mode as fill flash will result in a much better picture.
 
Lee Kok Whee said:
Or include a 'bounce card' in the setup.
Click to expand...
The bounce card is as harsh as direct flash, which is why I find backward bounce to be a far better solution.

Prog.
 
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