Fun Stuff from Fuzzy

To Flash or Not to Flash... That is the Question

What do you want to SAY with your photographs?  Where do you want the viewer's eye to go to?

Then use light to direct them there.

Flash fill has its place.  But sometimes it can mask the effect you want.  In today's example, the flash flattened the lighting, reducing the emphasis on the front of the parents' faces.  Not what I wanted.

The Speed of Stupid

“Using a long shutter speed allows the light to travel around the room and record on the sensor.”

 I would hope everyone reading this can see through that old baloney.  At 186,000 miles per second (at least it was the last time I measured it) light doesn’t need a long shutter speed.  It’s the AMBIENT light that’s being included in a long exposure.

 This myth began in the film days, but now that learning is so fast with digital capture and the internet, this myth is happily fading away.

Never on a Sunday (or Saturday)

Just so y'all know, I won't be adding blog tutorial entries on weekends.  Our studio is open Monday through Friday, so I won't be posting teaching images or opinions on weekends.

I should calibrate my monitor to the same color as my lab.

“You must calibrate to the same color temp as your lab”

 The color you calibrate to only affects what you see on your monitor.  It does not affect the file.  So whether your monitor is calibrated to 5000K or 6500K or any color, it's only important that a 127, 127 127 gray looks neutral gray to your eyes.  Gray will print gray at any lab, regardless of how those labs calibrate their monitors.  The lab chooses calibration settings for their MONITORS, not their machines.

It IS critial to use a calibrated monitor.   And if you compare prints to your screen, your room should be illuminated with the same color temp that you calibrate at.  There is some disagreement about that issue, but my testing has not confirmed that.

If your room is lit with full specturm 5000K bulbs, your monitor should be calibrated to about 5000K.  My actual calibration worked best at 5200K. 

Now I've changed to 6500 monitor calbration and put blue gels on my lights so they're closer to 6500.

But to return to the original question... you do NOT need to know what your lab's monitors are calibrated at.

A Breather Lesson

Today's lesson is a simple one... as a break from the heavy stuff I've been showing.

Off camera flash is wildly popular today, and for good reason.  Ambient with light modifiers work well for a majority of portrait situations.  But the remainder NEEDS articial light.  Flash is popular because of the convenience of off-camera ETTL automation. 

But flash is NOT a panacea.  It MUST be used with intelligence.  You still need to know a thing or two (or three) about light.  You can't just blast away with flash if the light is awful on the face to begin with.  What I do is make sure the light is "flat" on he face first.  Then I can place the light wherever I want it for the desired light pattern. 

For today's example, I had her stand under a tree so that we wouldn't have ugly top light to deal with.  It also gave her something to pose with.  "Grab the leaves, cross your legs and twist the top half of your body back toward the light."

Mistaken Myth #2 "Depth of Field is Shallower with a Telephoto Lens"

“Depth-of-field is shallower with a telephoto lens than a wide angle lens.” 

This myth continues to survive because when we switch to a telephoto or zoom in, we often don’t change our position, and the image magnification is greater.  If we were to switch to a wide angle lens, then walk up to a subject, and fill the frame so the subject is the same size at the film/sensor plane, the depth of field is nearly identical. 

Telephotos give us greater background magnification which, for example, turns a backround tree into a “blob”.  But detail in that blob would be about the same if we were to photograph the subject with a wide angle lens and kept the subject the same image size on the sensor.

Of course the reverse is also true.  A wide angle lens does not automatically give us more depth of field.

The major factor that determines depth-of-field, when the image is kept the same size on the film plane, is the camera’s aperture… not focal length!

And now back to our regularly scheduled senior...

My blog is used for a variety of things... not only to showcase client work but also photographer education.  Today's installment will be both.

I photographed this girl last week in the Fall colors.  But to illustrate two different aspects of the season, I captured a colorful image, and a more dreary "Twilight" look.  

The light was overcast, so I didn't want her to look at the camera.  Otherwise her eyes would have been too dark.  That meant turning her sideways.  I faced her into the (brutally cold) wind so that it would blow her hair back.  I shifted the color of her mauve shirt to orange in Photoshop.  I also used Nik Color Efex Tonal Contrast.

For the blue toned image I lit her with a softbox to my right.  I desaturated the bushes in the background since I wanted a more "lifeless" image, and green wouldn't convey that messagge.  I also gave the image an overall a blue tint. 

 

Mistaken Myths

I mentioned a few days ago that from time to time I'll post some written pieces.

Today is my first installment of that... Mistaken Myths.  Photography (like the internet) spawns lots of nonsense.  Thankfully, (like the internet) those myths can quickly be proved false.

Today's topic deals with a small light source.  In subsequent articles I'll throw cold water on a lot of other incorrect assumptions. 

“A small flash is a high contrast light.”

Small light sources are sometimes thought to have “high contrast”.  This can be somewhat correct, but not in the context that is commonly thought.  The term “contrast” refers to the difference of two light levels.  So how can the size of one light source produce any difference?  Well, lighting actually causes two contrasts... specular-to-diffused contrast, and diffused-to-shadow contrast.  The specular-to-diffused “contrast” does depend on the size and distance of the light source relative to the subject, however the diffused-to shadow contrast is determined by the amount of fill light.

It is correct that a small light source has a higher specular quality.  For example, hair and skin will look shinier from a small light source, because those shiny surfaces act as a mirror of the light source.  Since the light energy is concentrated in a small area, the specular reflection is brighter.  Therefore, the specular-to-diffused contrast will be higher.  With large light sources, the same amount of light energy is distributed across a larger area, and is therefore dimmer per square inch.  So a large light produces less specular-to-diffused contrast.

However, the contrast most photographers speak of is diffused-to-shadow contrast.  This value is not affected by the size of the light source, but rather by the intensity of the fill or ambient light.  If not examined closely, the hard edge from a small light may be mistaken for high contrast, but in actuality it only creates a more rapid transition (a sharper edge) from diffused value to the shadow. 

A light’s “quality” or edge transfer characteristics can be sharp or soft depending on the relative size and proximity of that light source.  The fill light, be it ambient, artificial or reflected light, determines shadow light level, and diffused-to-shadow contrast. 

A large light source can also give the illusion of low contrast when used near the axis of the camera lens.  This is because some of the main light fills in what would be the shadow side if the light were smaller.  However, if the light source is placed more obliquely  to the side of the subject, the amount of light on the shadow side would be solely determined by fill light, not the main light.  Therefore, referring to a main light as a low or high contrast light is not appropriate. 

Along with the myth about contrast, is the corresponding myth that a large light makes brighter shadows.  The shadow edge shows a more gradual darkening, or is brighter longer into the shadow side.  But where none of the main light reaches the subject, the shadow is equally as dark as a small light source.

Basic Indoor Flash Exposure

OK, all you old-timers can ignore this.  (Old timer is anyone old enough to remember a TV show with Monte Markham playing an 1800s guy who got frozen and now awoke 100 years later).  (Geez... talk about OBSCURE!!!)

When you want to make a portrait of someone inside a home, you generally want the windows to be about 1-2 stops overexposed.  Too dark and it looks stormy outside.  Too light and you lose colorfull detail, and the brightness draws attention away from the subject.

So start by setting your camera (on Manual) for the outside exposure through the window.  Use a meter or chimp your LCD display.  Set your f-stop for your preferred depth of field.  I usually shoot at f4 (unless I have a reason not to.)  Vary the shutter speed until it looks a little lighter than it does to your eye as you look at the window.  You don't even need to fire the flash yet.

Then set the flash for a proper exposure on the subject at the f-stop you previously set.

That's it! 

 

  
 

P.S. Isn't that pink flower a nice touch?  Hey, gimme a break, I don't alway have good ideas.

Scrims... the Portable Cloud

We all know clouds make for easier lighting (not always the best, but certainly easier).  Well, what if you have a sunny day, but want soft light?  You can find shade, but that's not always the look you may want.  You can get BEE YOU TEE FULL light if you soften the light with a scim between the Sun and the subject. 

I use a Larson 48x72 white scrim.  I made a PVC frame scrim one once, but it was too slow to assemble.  I've used other commercially made units like the Scrim Jim, Lightform (no longer made) and Calumet.  Those types use a frame around the white translucent panel.  They work well, but I prefer the Larson because it sets up quickly.  It's about $400 I think, but hey... when you're a professional, use professional equipment. 

 

This is an obvious case for NOT shooting in hard sunlight.

 

Same place, but with the light softened with a scrim.

 

The Larsen scim in place.  I also used a 300mm f2.8 lens.  Yeah, it costs over $3000, but again, you can't get by with cheap junk.  Buy the best and use it to its fullest!