Fill-in Flash

[daveh]

Backlit subjects are always a problem for exposure. An averaging exposure meter will underexpose the subject, whereas a spot meter reading taken from the face will overexpose the background. The answer, as we all know, is to put more light on the subject and this is where fill-in flash helps.





I wish I could say that I intentionally took these two frames to illustrate the point but it was undoubtedly just a case of forgetting to turn the flash on initially.

Colour negative, Cosina CT7 (I think) with Sunpak flashgun, May 1989.

[Berndt]

Fill-in flash techniques are probably one of the most complicated things in photography ... at least for me. Brightening dark objects BUT still getting a natural look of the picture is not really easy

I experimented a lot with bouncing techniques, but that can be quite tricky as well, if you don't know exactly, how the light will be reflected by different surfaces. Recently, I use more straight flash again. It works better for me, but the trick is the right combination of ISO and flash power.

Talking about your example picture, what you ( might ) want is "keeping the natural light and mood in the area of the bed and window" but lighting the lady a little bit more up. I have never seen a camera automatic, which could manage that properly but it is actually not that difficult. It just need a few tries though. Indoors, I would go for ISO 800 on digital and 400 ASA for film, 1/125 sec is fine ( it case, somebody moves ), aperture adjusted to the light conditions ... and just a tick of flash.

Most photographers I know, are working completely manually ( flash and camera settings ). That works actually best.

[daveh]

Berndt, when I statred out flash was done with flashbulbs - the blue coated variety for daylight film. Electronic flash made things much easier still, especially once they had 'metering eyes' included. The ability to bounce flash (with flashgun on camera) came a bit later still. Maybe manual is still best in the studio, where there is all the time in the world to set up the shot and get it right. It is, however, so much easier to let the camera do most of the calculation: I tend to 'turn the flash down' for most work sometimes as little as 1/3 of a stop, sometimes as much as 2 stops (and occasionally more). I've taken very few shots where the subject has allowed me time to calculate ambient light and then distance and f-stop to get the flash in balance.

Dave.

[Deleted]

One thing I have learned is that even with today's sophisticated light measuring sensors you have to be careful. Shot some photos at a company party with a DSLR in a room light by bright florescent lights and I set my ISO too high. So the camera recorded a flash image AND and a separate available light "ghost" image that destroyed the photo.

BTW. In flashbulb days I learned you don't want to carry flashbulbs in you pants pockets in areas where a lot of static electricity is being generated OR around radar, They can trigger the bulbs and give a new meaning to the term "hot pants."

W.

[daveh]

Wayne,

I know what you mean, "ISO" can be a problem. The Canon digital SLRs (?all the series) default to ISO 400 with flash , when the film speed 'dial' is set to AUTO and the flash head in standard position. However turn the head up for bounce flash and it sets ISO to whatever the ambient light suggests is sensible - i.e. the flash is acting as fill-in rather than dominating - high ISO, shutter speed slow and wide open aperture when light is low. Sometimes it actually works very nicely with those ghost-edged images, but often, as you say, it just looks a mess.

Dave.

[Berndt]

high ISO, shutter speed slow and wide open aperture when light is low.

I am not 100% sure, but I think, that is exactly what causes Waynes "ghost images". The object ( or mostly person ) will be continiously exposed and then again by the flash. If it moves ( or even just the camera ), you'll get those kind of ghosts. People use this as an artistic effect sometimes, but using a pretty low ISO then. Long exposure times, wildly panning around and firing the flash. The result looks a little bit like a multi-exposure, pretty cool sometimes at a party or club for example.

The problem have been focal plane shutters, which usually just allow you to use 1/60 sec in combination with a flash. I just use older cameras with leaf shutters. Leaf shutters allow you to synchronize the flash at all shutter speeds and 1/125 sec works often better ... in cases, you don't want ghosts on your pictures.

[daveh]

Low flash-sync shutter speeds used to be a given with focal plane shutters. I remember the Praktica LLC getting a 1/125 sync thanks to its vertical shutter, rather than the conventional horizontal blinds.

Digital leaves all this behind. With dedicated flash guns, high speed sync is possible. Both the Pentax *ist DS, using the AF360 and the Canon 7D using the 580EXii let me use just about any shutter speed I like. Where the Pentax falls short is its inability to focus on occasion when the light is low.

Leaf shutters, of course, had no problem with flash - but where they had a problem was getting shutter speed above 1/500 in the first place.

[Deleted]

In the case of the party the ceiling was too high to bounce. There was enough light that I should have set ISO at 800 and shot without a flash.

[Berndt]

Digital leaves all this behind. With dedicated flash guns, high speed sync is possible. Both the Pentax *ist DS, using the AF360 and the Canon 7D using the 580EXii let me use just about any shutter speed I like.

Frankly speaking, I am not such an expert of digital cameras, but what I noticed from a few tries and from talking to friends, who are working as professional photographers, the automatic even using a pretty advanced equipment is not really reliable. Using a bouncing technique, neither the camera nor the flash are capable of anticipating reflected light ... and direct flash ... well, some digital cameras can produce decent results ... I would say, sometimes

Considering the original topic, fill in flash, I think, that manual settings are still the way to go. I seriously doubt, that any camera can anticipate properly, WHAT the photographer actually wants to light up a little bit and what should look still natural. Flash photography is difficult in many ways, because the mood of the flashed picture is mostly completely different from the unflashed one. Mixing both can be very tricky, also from the white ballance and colors.

Therefore, my favorite ( fill in ) flash is actually a very simple one. I mostly use the lomography "Fritz the Blitz", which can be set on just three power levels ... and I use film. I leave the exposure settings just as if I would want to shoot a natural picture without flash and just add the flash with a mounted diffuser. That works pretty good and I could never get similar results with my digital camera ... which can also mean, that I am too stupid for that of course

But also for the "normal flash pictures" ( not only fill in ), I experimented with film recently again. Always used digital but I mostly needed a second try then ( adjusting something ). Digital is so sensitive and has a low latitude. If not working in a studio, the perfect ballance can be very difficult to get with one hit. The faces too bright, the clothes still too dark ... quite tricky. In my analog experiment, I used a Tri-X Pan 400, just an old Aires Viscount rangefinder and a cheap flash with no settings possible ... and the pictures have been the best, I ever took on a wedding party indoors. Simple settings, 1/125 sec and the aperture just switching between 5.6 and 11, depending on the distance. Success rate 100% ... really ... and the fantastic thing was, that I could concentrate more on taking pictures than on my camera settings. Also the mood is different, if you need a second shot. People start to notice you, pose in a different and more unnatural way.

Of course, everybody has a different work flow and style of taking pictures. In the end, everybody needs to find his own way, he feels comfortable with. I always have been the "manual guy" because I like to have total control of my camera. Estimating, what the camera and flash is possibly measuring and doing and adjusting has never been the way for me. My oldfashioned attitude is still: I don't need to know, what the camera is doing, it just needs to do, what I want it to do

[daveh]

There is a saying "people know what they like, and like what they know". Whenever using anything new there is normally some difficulty getting to know a new system or technique. Early results are often not as good as the old tried and tested ones. A professional will stick with what he or she knows will give the results necessary: professionals can't afford failures. However, each new generation is moving forwards.

Yes, of course, if you are in a studio or have time to set up fully you can use multiple flash, fill-in reflectors and other such methods. This takes time and usually at least one assistant to help. At the other extreme we have a person with a camera who wants to capture a shot as it happens with flash, and get reasonable results. By and large letting the camera do the thinking gets the (better) shot, while manual setting loses it.

[daveh]

All taken with flash, letting the camera take care of the exposure.

(edited -changing umpteen photos from imageshack)

[Deleted]

With the original focal plane shutter cameras you were stuck at 1/60 sec. flash sync and the metal copal shutter (Nikkormat and several other makes) only pumped the sync to 1/125. Now higher speeds are available with many cameras making it possible to fill flash even in bright sunlight--which could only be done in the old days if you used really low speed film. My only problem with my Nikon DSLR is that I've never really sat down to figure out the fill flash capabilities and tend to try to shoot with my old film focal plane rules which is what causes problems like "ghosts."

Those of us a little longer of tooth remember back in the '60s and '70s when the amateur 35mm crowd considered "available light" the only way to shoot and considered using a flash of any sort heresy. Like Dave said, pros--who had to come up with good images to make a living--had no problem using flash as even a flash photo with with a dark shadow behind the subject was better than an available light shot with the entire subject in a dark shadow,

Wayne

[daveh]

Wayne, I would also add:

Fortunately I didn't start when all there was available was flash powder; but all I had, for the first 12 years or more, was flash bulbs which gave a set amount of light. There was no chance of altering the flash output itself. Even the first electronic flash I obtained (1972) only had the one set output. The only way of adjusting exposure was to move closer or further away, or alter the f-stop. Yes, you got used to getting it reasonably right but you didn't find your successes or failures till the film was developed.

Being able to set different levels of flash already makes things simpler. Of course, at the other extreme, some manual override (of the automatic system) is available on the camera (or flash) with the ability to give more or less flash power. I mostly have mine set at 2/3 stop down i.e the flash puts out less light. It is possible, of course to set both camera and flash to fully manual. However, I've been there and done that and don't really know why I should want to go back to it.

On the subject of bounce flash:
1) I find the Canon copes well with it.
2) There is the perennial problem both with high ceilings and
3) coloured ceilings. However, little problem for digital here: it's relatively easy to reset the colour balance, especially if shooting RAW.


I do think much of the problem is that we expect camera automation and/or digital to fully take all the decisions from us. They don't and what's more each creates its own problems. Everything is a learning curve. The more one uses anything the better one gets at it.

[Deleted]

Dave:

Good point on Electronic flashes only have one speed. Nikon actually made a lens--the 45mm GN that you set the guide number of the flash on the lens and as you focused it mechanically adjusted the lens aperture. The lens is actually highly sought after today because it was very compact and very sharp (no one cares about the guide number thing. Not too many years ago Nikon released a lens (MF) that was identical but didn't have the GN feature --and quintupled the price!

W.

[Berndt]

There is a saying "people know what they like, and like what they know".

That is very true ... same as the other things, you said.

However, I worked ( and still work ) with digital high tech equipment as well. I am always quoting Da Vinci at this point: Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication
There is also some truth in that. I met many people, trusting too much on RAW, auto features and the chance for getting everything repaired in Photoshop later. It works ... up to a certain level, I think. Creativity requires control and I personally found it often easier to achieve a certain goal just with manual settings and trusting on my experience than on any artificial intelligence.

Plus ... we also get caught in certain workflows soon. Once, you choose the "digital way" and I did it myself for years, you get caught in this world, trying to learn and master all those complicated features , loose youself in the infinite source of Photoshop effects and layers ... and my experience has been, that I forgot, how simple things can be. I see so many "over-Photoshopped" works, even from professionals, because they lost their sense for the limits.

Of course, the liking also changed. People become used to the modern look of pictures through magazines and posters ... but well, what can I say ... photography for me is still "trying to catch a raw mood" and I basically like the work with the camera and not at the computer later.

Also regarding "fill in flash" ... I think, it's like the Make Up of a lady. The best is, if you can't see, that there is some Make Up at all. This kind of fine tuning can only be done by humans and not by the automatic of a camera or flash. I can't post a good picture for showing that at the moment, because all of my "pro shots" are showing people, I would need to get the permission from them for doing that first. Sorry for that. I can just message those in case somebody is interested.

However, it is true, that modern digital cameras are doing a very good job on an amateur level. "Average consumers" can get much better results with less effort than in the past. What I just miss, is the variety. Digital pictures are basically looking all the same meanwhile, because every camera just tries to optimize everything in the same way. A different look can just be achieved by special effects or IPhone Apps in post. I found it unsatisfying ... just personally ... and started disliking my own pictures.

For paying customers, I still use digital. Most people can't see the difference between a photoshopped picture and something on real film anymore anyway ... and as I said, they are used to the modern look of digital pictures too ... but honestly, when it comes to photograph people, faces and especially skin, there is nothing like real film ... still ... and if it is not in bright sunlight, I can clearly see a fill in flash on every digital picture, but if it is done well, it can't be seen on film.