Bragging about our expensive mirrorless/DSLR vs a point and shoot

Started Jun 16, 2014 | Discussions thread
jkjond Veteran Member • Posts: 8,477

photoreddi wrote:

Acrill wrote:

photoreddi wrote:

Acrill wrote:

You need to use a filter then. Like I said, you are using the camera incorrectly.

Wake up Acrill. I didn't use the camera, the OP did. You are also wrong to suggest that a filter should be used. It wouldn't help at all even if it's an ND filter. If you think about it you might understand why.

Sorry, a bit sleepy here.

A filter would allow the OP to use a more normal aperture. It is only one solution to the problem.

Yes, it would. The problem is that an ND filter would also reduce whatever light the flash emits by the same amount. So if you used a 3 stop ND filter (allowing f/16 to change to f/5.6, a 3 stop aperture increase), you would have to increase the flash's power by the same 3 stop's worth (8 times the output power) because the light that the flash emits is also reduced the same amount by the ND filter.

there is something amiss here, and misleading.

If the foreground is underexposed by 3 stops you have three options to balance the exposure:

+3 stops of flash to balance the shot

+3 stops by opening the aperture, no flash and blow the background.

+3 stops of aperture, -3 stops from filter, + 3 stops of flash

Yes the filter is reducing the amount of flash reaching the sensor, but the increased aperture is cancelling that effect. Although the flash is illuminating the background it has a diminishing effect on the distance. You could juggle with the aperture, shutter speed, iso and flash output to get the exact balance required if the background were closer - so long as there was some separation.

-- hide signature --

Wedding and fine art photographer based in the Lake District, UK

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow