Comments on: fill-flash example (Vegas)

By: Neil

Neil — Sat, 16 Aug 2008 09:18:46 +0000

John …

Sure, aperture selection should be dictated by the DoF needed. Rarely do I as a portrait / wedding photographer need lots of depth-of-field.

But in a scenario like this, had a decided I needed f16 kind of depth-of-field, I would either need a much much larger flashgun to achieve bounce flash at that aperture, and used like I had … oOr I’d have to accept that fill-flash wouldn’t register (at that chosen small aperture.)

Neil vN.

By: John

John — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 12:22:42 +0000

Ummm but the aperture selection should also be dictated by the DOF right ?. I meant what if I want to see the background of the picture (just for an example).

John

By: Trevor Simpson

Trevor Simpson — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 12:22:32 +0000

Hi Neil,

Fantastic articles, discovered your postings a few months ago, but only just did in depth read.

I have a question regarding light in the tropics [Central/Northern Australia] as even when using my 5D at highest sync at 200th or my 1D Mk III which syncs at 300th and ISO is set at 50 even, my aperture still wants me to stop down to around 8-11 in a lot of cases.

I do a lot of beach weddings, subjects in shade on foreshore, bright background. Sand/sky/water and sometimes even the dang sun itself coming in from around 90 degrees to left. Normally I like to shoot in the ‘direction of my shadow’ is my motto, but of course that does not always suffice.

And yep, tried the old High Speed Sync and trying to get a large group shot in shade zoomed right out and around 4 meters away [13ft. approx] my flash range is as you say, drastically cut back.

So I either run with ‘blown’ backgrounds, or just ‘grin and bear it’ then try to lighten up the subjects in Photoshop, not always a good option.

Any thoughts.

Trev.

By: Chris Joerg

Chris Joerg — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 16:25:24 +0000

Hey Neil!

As being attracted by available light because of hating the destroying effect of flash on pictures, your site and knowledge is the “enlightenment” ;-) !
Great how you make the “accursed” flash invisible!

Thanks for sharing that! All the best! Chris Joerg

If you want, take a look at my site: http://home.arcor.de/christianmeding/

By: Carla

Carla — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 15:09:21 +0000

thanks for the explanation… although i’m still confused. i’m not a good photographer but apparently i’m good at being photographed. i feel important when i see my face on the internet. i hope i looked as good in my wedding photos.

Love,
Carla Matey

By: Tammy Cravit

Tammy Cravit — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 23:43:48 +0000

Thanks for a great post! I’m actually torn about which image I like better, but the concept of having the subjects aligned nearly to vertical and the background tilted accordingly is one I really like. Plus that’s a lovely, very evocative pose…I’ll have to remember it. :-)

Thanks, too, for adding me to your blog roll!

Warmly,
Tammy

By: joseph franklin

joseph franklin — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 16:32:57 +0000

Thank you for sharing your knowledge. i like how you explain stuff and I also find the before and after shots are very helpful.
I really found the lighting of the Indian wedding very useful.

again thank you

all the best joe