Reading mode: Light Dark

Flash compensation vs exposure compensation

Go to last post
Neverlost99

Neverlost99

Senior Member
Messages
1,250
Reaction score
1,439
Location
Venice, US
You can go into the flash settings under menu and set an over or under exposure for your flash. At the same time you can use the scrolling wheel to easily over or under expose a picture. How do these work separately or in conjunction and is there a preference?
 
Just to give one example - if you're shooting someone with strong light behind them, you could shoot with EV set to +1 to bring out more detail in the background which would otherwise be too dark, and at the same time you could set the flash to underexpose so it acts as "fill in", giving some light to bring out detail in the subject's face without either bleaching it out or making it look unnatural (it would otherwise be a silhouette).

That's just one situation out of an infinite range of possibilities.
 
ChrisLumix said:
Just to give one example - if you're shooting someone with strong light behind them, you could shoot with EV set to +1 to bring out more detail in the background which would otherwise be too dark, and at the same time you could set the flash to underexpose so it acts as "fill in", giving some light to bring out detail in the subject's face without either bleaching it out or making it look unnatural (it would otherwise be a silhouette).
Click to expand...
That would apply for the "slow flash sync" setting with aperture priority where exposure speed and flash sync are basically independent. With flash-only setting, it becomes more interesting to guess what should happen. Could well be different for different cameras.
 
It depends in loads of factors. From fill in flash in bright sunlight to fill in flash in a night scene, you need different levels of flash light versus what the camera aperture or shutter speed is needed to get the background over, under, or correctly exposed. But luckily it's also possible to leave everything to the camera to work out.
 
Dak on cam said:
ChrisLumix said:
Just to give one example - if you're shooting someone with strong light behind them, you could shoot with EV set to +1 to bring out more detail in the background which would otherwise be too dark, and at the same time you could set the flash to underexpose so it acts as "fill in", giving some light to bring out detail in the subject's face without either bleaching it out or making it look unnatural (it would otherwise be a silhouette).
Click to expand...
That would apply for the "slow flash sync" setting with aperture priority ...
Click to expand...
As usual not entirely correct. :-|

Been using flash and /or camera EC for MANY years (i.e., non-auto cameras and non-auto flash units) to 'balance' flash exposures; indoors and outdoors,

In lower lighting the ambient lighting can be bright enough that at slower shutter speeds that can result in subject movement blurring.

FWIW: With older film cameras for +/- EC setting, one would increase or decrease the ISO (ASA) setting from the film's rated ISO (ASA).
 
I usually set flash exposure to a lower level for close ups, especially for people/faces- cuts harshness and glare for a more natural looking light.
 
Rondo15 said:
I usually set flash exposure to a lower level for close ups, especially for people/faces- cuts harshness and glare for a more natural looking light.
Click to expand...
For closeups, you have all sort of leeway for using bounce flash and/or diffusors and/or put the flash zoom to its widest setting (possibly by putting on a wide panel) since flash power is hardly an issue (well, bouncing over the ceiling can make it one, though). For flashes that cannot quench arbitrarily, diluting their output in that manner can help getting smoother lighting.

When the flash is within its operating range either way, TTL makes flash exposure somewhat independent, but the light quality might still be better.
 
I actually found a way to combat that motion blur. The way I do it is to set the shutter speed at 1/60s and increase the ISO to 400 or 800. It's the same as using slow shutter sync.
 
Dak on cam said:
Rondo15 said:
I usually set flash exposure to a lower level for close ups, especially for people/faces- cuts harshness and glare for a more natural looking light.
Click to expand...
For closeups, you have all sort of leeway for using bounce flash and/or diffusors and/or put the flash zoom to its widest setting (possibly by putting on a wide panel) since flash power is hardly an issue (well, bouncing over the ceiling can make it one, though). For flashes that cannot quench arbitrarily, diluting their output in that manner can help getting smoother lighting.

When the flash is within its operating range either way, TTL makes flash exposure somewhat independent, but the light quality might still be better.
Click to expand...
Your list of possibilities raises a question: is there a flash unit that can throw its light backwards? That would produce an even lower fill-in.
 
Last edited:
edhume said:
Dak on cam said:
Rondo15 said:
I usually set flash exposure to a lower level for close ups, especially for people/faces- cuts harshness and glare for a more natural looking light.
Click to expand...
For closeups, you have all sort of leeway for using bounce flash and/or diffusors and/or put the flash zoom to its widest setting (possibly by putting on a wide panel) since flash power is hardly an issue (well, bouncing over the ceiling can make it one, though). For flashes that cannot quench arbitrarily, diluting their output in that manner can help getting smoother lighting.

When the flash is within its operating range either way, TTL makes flash exposure somewhat independent, but the light quality might still be better.
Click to expand...
Your list of possibilities raises a question: is there a flash unit that can throw its light backwards? That would produce an even lower fill-in.
Click to expand...
All the Metz flashes I have can point fully backwards (their swivel has a dead zone of 90° but it's asymmetric so that you can reach backwards in one direction of rotation). When you are photographing something from above while bouncing over the ceiling, that comes in handy.

You have to think about what to do with your eyes though because flashing them is not fun.
 
Dak on cam said:
edhume said:
Dak on cam said:
Rondo15 said:
I usually set flash exposure to a lower level for close ups, especially for people/faces- cuts harshness and glare for a more natural looking light.
Click to expand...
For closeups, you have all sort of leeway for using bounce flash and/or diffusors and/or put the flash zoom to its widest setting (possibly by putting on a wide panel) since flash power is hardly an issue (well, bouncing over the ceiling can make it one, though). For flashes that cannot quench arbitrarily, diluting their output in that manner can help getting smoother lighting.

When the flash is within its operating range either way, TTL makes flash exposure somewhat independent, but the light quality might still be better.
Click to expand...
Your list of possibilities raises a question: is there a flash unit that can throw its light backwards? That would produce an even lower fill-in.
Click to expand...
All the Metz flashes I have can point fully backwards (their swivel has a dead zone of 90° but it's asymmetric so that you can reach backwards in one direction of rotation). When you are photographing something from above while bouncing over the ceiling, that comes in handy.

You have to think about what to do with your eyes though because flashing them is not fun.
Click to expand...
Ah, the memories! IIRC my flash with my first camera (a Pentax) was a Metz. That was 55 years ago.
 
edhume said:
Dak on cam said:
edhume said:
Dak on cam said:
Rondo15 said:
I usually set flash exposure to a lower level for close ups, especially for people/faces- cuts harshness and glare for a more natural looking light.
Click to expand...
For closeups, you have all sort of leeway for using bounce flash and/or diffusors and/or put the flash zoom to its widest setting (possibly by putting on a wide panel) since flash power is hardly an issue (well, bouncing over the ceiling can make it one, though). For flashes that cannot quench arbitrarily, diluting their output in that manner can help getting smoother lighting.

When the flash is within its operating range either way, TTL makes flash exposure somewhat independent, but the light quality might still be better.
Click to expand...
Your list of possibilities raises a question: is there a flash unit that can throw its light backwards? That would produce an even lower fill-in.
Click to expand...
All the Metz flashes I have can point fully backwards (their swivel has a dead zone of 90° but it's asymmetric so that you can reach backwards in one direction of rotation). When you are photographing something from above while bouncing over the ceiling, that comes in handy.

You have to think about what to do with your eyes though because flashing them is not fun.
Click to expand...
Ah, the memories! IIRC my flash with my first camera (a Pentax) was a Metz. That was 55 years ago.
Click to expand...
I wanted to state that you probably remembered incorrectly since a dedicated electronic (rather than disposable filament) flash would have to have been produced lots later than that, but indeed the mecablitz 100 as the first electronic photographic flash was released in 1957. It must have cost a fortune. And (just guessing here) probably was run using high-voltage batteries rather than using a DC converter with the characteristic whine.

Oh wow, here is one for sale hire. As a prop. I thought the asking price was very decent, but it's just for a week.
 
Last edited:
edhume said:
... is there a flash unit that can throw its light backwards? That would produce an even lower fill-in.
Click to expand...
Yes, believe most of the recent/ better hot-shoe flash units will rotate for flash head to flash backwards.

The older Panasonic DMW-FL360/ DMW-FL360R and the Olympus FL-36/ Olympus FL-36R (the same flash) does.

Actually an easier way to get fill-type flash is to do what pro photojournalists did for decades prior to the popularity of the small slip-on dome diffuser ... (i.e., Sto-Fen Omni-Bounce )

... they set flash straight -up and attached a 3x5 white index card to flash wit a rubber band. If more froward light needed, just tilt the head down a little to direct more of the flash output forward.

Image below made with the Olympus FL-36 with head straight up and dome diffuser attached to soften flash output and have a small catch light in the eyes; darken corners done with PP.



Unfortunately since Peter Gregg is mfg/ selling his "A Better Bounce Card" he has removed his original YouTube (posted over ten years ago) showing how to build his
"A Better Bounce Card". (Though not that hard to figure out how to make one.)

At the time it was unique as it work well with camera in landscape orientation or
portrait orientation as the flash head always facing up.

5a97de4d2f684b5e9346eece90a6f7fc.jpg

Peter Gregg's "A Better Bounce Card".

Cheers,
Jon
 
Last edited:
Neverlost99 said:
No one has answered the question. I wanted to know if there’s a difference between flash exposure compensation and regular EV compensation. On the FZ 1000 there seem to be two options
Click to expand...
Actually some did; e.g., ChrisLumix and Sranang Boi.

If you did not understand their answers then 'YOU' need to reply to them asking for further explanation — if you do not post reply they (and others) are going to assume you understood what they posted and are OK with what they posted.

The VERY basic's.

Use the camera's exposure compensation to make corrections/ adjustments to override exposure settings selected by camera’s metering to darken highlights, or brighten shadows. No exposure metering is infallible and there are lighting conditions that will cause highlights to be overexposed or shadow areas to be underexposed.

Classic example is "back-lighting"; i.e., when the lighting in the background is brighter than the lighting on the subject, as when a person indoors stands with a bright daylight window behind them. Normal full image area metering system going to set exposure taking in bright area behind the person and the person going to be underexposed. May need +1 to +3 exposure compensation to override the metering system to allow more light (slower shutter speed and/or larger aperture to allow more light so the person is properly exposed.

Use the flash exposure compensation to override exposure settings selected by camera’s flash metering to adjust the flash output.

Simple example is if close to subject (person) with dark background the subject will probably overexposed by the "FLASH" selected output level, would use -1 or more negative flash exposure compensation to reduce the flash output to prevent subject from being overexposed.

Difficult to provide a simple answer as others already noted the use of exposure compensation, flash compensation, or exposure compensation and flash compensation dependent upon a LOT of variables: ambient lighting, camera-to-subject flash distance, focal length being used, etc.

You need to take time to read/ learn the photography exposure basics and how your camera's metering system works under different lighting to properly override exposure settings selected by camera’s metering.

There are plenty of articles and tutorials you can by doing some searches, for example:
• "What is Exposure Compensation and How to Use It" HERE .
• "DigicamHelp.com" HERE

Also if you have not already done you need to download and read the PDF
"Owner's Manual for advanced features" as noted in the printed
"Basic Owner's Manual" that came in the box with the camera to learn/ understand how to fully use the camera.

"Basic Owner's Manual" is just that 'ONLY' the basics; i.e., introduction.

Cheers,
Jon
 
Last edited:
Dak on cam said:
edhume said:
Dak on cam said:
edhume said:
Dak on cam said:
Rondo15 said:
I usually set flash exposure to a lower level for close ups, especially for people/faces- cuts harshness and glare for a more natural looking light.
Click to expand...
For closeups, you have all sort of leeway for using bounce flash and/or diffusors and/or put the flash zoom to its widest setting (possibly by putting on a wide panel) since flash power is hardly an issue (well, bouncing over the ceiling can make it one, though). For flashes that cannot quench arbitrarily, diluting their output in that manner can help getting smoother lighting.

When the flash is within its operating range either way, TTL makes flash exposure somewhat independent, but the light quality might still be better.
Click to expand...
Your list of possibilities raises a question: is there a flash unit that can throw its light backwards? That would produce an even lower fill-in.
Click to expand...
All the Metz flashes I have can point fully backwards (their swivel has a dead zone of 90° but it's asymmetric so that you can reach backwards in one direction of rotation). When you are photographing something from above while bouncing over the ceiling, that comes in handy.

You have to think about what to do with your eyes though because flashing them is not fun.
Click to expand...
Ah, the memories! IIRC my flash with my first camera (a Pentax) was a Metz. That was 55 years ago.
Click to expand...
I wanted to state that you probably remembered incorrectly since a dedicated electronic (rather than disposable filament) flash would have to have been produced lots later than that, but indeed the mecablitz 100 as the first electronic photographic flash was released in 1957. It must have cost a fortune. And (just guessing here) probably was run using high-voltage batteries rather than using a DC converter with the characteristic whine.

Oh wow, here is one for sale hire. As a prop. I thought the asking price was very decent, but it's just for a
Click to expand...
I was poor then. I was still in high school, so it was 1967 or before. I remember that the flash unit had a plastic light dispersion window that had linear Fresnel elements. I recall taking that window out and replacing it with a rectangle that I had cut from a translucent milk bottle. I then set the camera up on the tripod. With film on the film carrier, I then placed the modified flash next to the film, and reversing the way the light had come in, I made a poor boy's enlarger. It actually worked. I may still have the prints I made. Later, of course, I got a real enlarger, but I never forgot that flash unit.

However, I am grateful to you for resurrecting the name 'Mecablitz.' That's what it was. And it was a reusable electronic flash. I couldn't afford disposable flashes in those days.
 
edhume said:
Dak on cam said:
edhume said:
Ah, the memories! IIRC my flash with my first camera (a Pentax) was a Metz. That was 55 years ago.
Click to expand...
I wanted to state that you probably remembered incorrectly since a dedicated electronic (rather than disposable filament) flash would have to have been produced lots later than that, but indeed the mecablitz 100 as the first electronic photographic flash was released in 1957. It must have cost a fortune. And (just guessing here) probably was run using high-voltage batteries rather than using a DC converter with the characteristic whine.
Click to expand...
I was poor then. I was still in high school, so it was 1967 or before. I remember that the flash unit had a plastic light dispersion window that had linear Fresnel elements. I recall taking that window out and replacing it with a rectangle that I had cut from a translucent milk bottle. I then set the camera up on the tripod. With film on the film carrier, I then placed the modified flash next to the film, and reversing the way the light had come in, I made a poor boy's enlarger. It actually worked. I may still have the prints I made. Later, of course, I got a real enlarger, but I never forgot that flash unit.

However, I am grateful to you for resurrecting the name 'Mecablitz.' That's what it was.
Click to expand...
It actually still is what they call their current-day offers.
edhume said:
And it was a reusable electronic flash. I couldn't afford disposable flashes in those days.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't know the relative pricing.
 
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