Underexposing the background

[Colin Southern]

I assume that is due to the amount of ambient light. The key light was in a good position I think, but even at full power they weren't doing much. Although my logic seems flawed because the strobe was bright enough to bring the subject to correct exposure. Any thoughts?

It's a balancing act to be honest.

With a RAW capture - and a purely reflective scene (as the background is) you generally don't need to worry too much about under-exposing. If you hit the subject with the same amount of light again (so she's illuminated 50% by ambient & 50% by flash) then you're only over-exposing her by 1 stop, which a RAW exposure will easily handle ... from there you reduce EVERYTHING to a correct exposure and "hey presto" you've dropped the background back by a stop.

Some further notes on that though ...

- Usually I apply a vignette when then gives the illusion of better targeted lighting

- The effectiveness of your fill light is going to depend on a number of things like how far away it is and the F-Stop you're shooting at. With the right equipment you can have the flash operate in HSS mode which means you can get your shutterspeed above X-Sync - which means you can get your aperture open wider - which means you can throw your background out of focus more - which is generally a good thing. With HSS mode you lose another stop from the flash though. To be honest, I use 4 flashes in a 30" x 30" softbox for this kind of work, so power isn't a problem (the mount is called a 4-Square) (from Lightware) and I used to trigger the lights via a PocketWizard TT1 + 4x TT5 combination, but I've now moved to the new 600EX-RT models and have a SST-E3-RT arriving in a few days).

You need to be VERY careful about under-exposing the background in camera, because the flash will ALWAYS add light to the foreground, and you and up with too high of a contrast ratio - which makes the light VERY directional, and usually not very flattering.

[Equilibrium8]

It's a balancing act to be honest.

With a RAW capture - and a purely reflective scene (as the background is) you generally don't need to worry too much about under-exposing. If you hit the subject with the same amount of light again (so she's illuminated 50% by ambient & 50% by flash) then you're only over-exposing her by 1 stop, which a RAW exposure will easily handle ... from there you reduce EVERYTHING to a correct exposure and "hey presto" you've dropped the background back by a stop.

Some further notes on that though ...

- Usually I apply a vignette when then gives the illusion of better targeted lighting

- The effectiveness of your fill light is going to depend on a number of things like how far away it is and the F-Stop you're shooting at. With the right equipment you can have the flash operate in HSS mode which means you can get your shutterspeed above X-Sync - which means you can get your aperture open wider - which means you can throw your background out of focus more - which is generally a good thing. With HSS mode you lose another stop from the flash though. To be honest, I use 4 flashes in a 30" x 30" softbox for this kind of work, so power isn't a problem (the mount is called a 4-Square) (from Lightware) and I used to trigger the lights via a PocketWizard TT1 + 4x TT5 combination, but I've now moved to the new 600EX-RT models and have a SST-E3-RT arriving in a few days).

You need to be VERY careful about under-exposing the background in camera, because the flash will ALWAYS add light to the foreground, and you and up with too high of a contrast ratio - which makes the light VERY directional, and usually not very flattering.

Thanks for the detailed explanation Colin.

I'll have to work with X-sync for now. I just upgraded my triggers a few months ago, but didn't realize the wonders of HSS at the time, so went with non-HSS triggers. I also didn't think about doubling up on flashes; I could have gotten the 80 cm softbox instead of the 60 then (I took 60 cm as being the biggest a flash could fill efficiently).

I understand what you mean about the flat light now. I think trying to overexpose the skin at the same time is compounding that effect.

[speedneeder]

Kenny, I've been experimenting with a ND filter so I can still work outside with good DOF and a pair of flashes in one umbrella - ghetto style with gaffer's tape

[Colin Southern]

Kenny, I've been experimenting with a ND filter so I can still work outside with good DOF and a pair of flashes in one umbrella - ghetto style with gaffer's tape

Hi Brian,

It can work, but there are a couple of "gotchas" ...

1. It can make the AF struggle (at the one time you need it to be accurate due to the narrow DoF),

2. The ND filter also attenuates the flash output - not a biggie for a studio head (used outside), but can be a biggie for a low-power flash.

Best solution on the planet is to upgrade to the new Canon ST-E3-ET / 600EX-RT family (like mine )

[speedneeder]

Colin, I agree with your solution, but I don't have $3,000 for new flash equipment

Also, a ND filter in broad daylight hasn't been an AF problem for me, though sometimes I do see a color cast.

[Colin Southern]

Colin, I agree with your solution, but I don't have $3,000 for new flash equipment

Also, a ND filter in broad daylight hasn't been an AF problem for me, though sometimes I do see a color cast.

$3000? - oh how I wish

[speedneeder]

$630x4 + $300 = $3000 is what I was I thinking.

[Colin Southern]

$630x4 + $300 = $3000 is what I was I thinking.

Actually, that's probably about right for your part of the world. I got 5 of them (ST-E3-RT wasn't released, and I wanted a master controller / spare) + the cost of the ST-E3-RT (arriving early next week -- paid an extra $60 to have one brought into the country for me, since Canon don't appear to know when they're arriving in NZ) - add to that overseas freight + taxes + the 4-Square (plus freight on that) - and I think I'm up to about $6000 NZD.

[Equilibrium8]

Kenny, I've been experimenting with a ND filter so I can still work outside with good DOF and a pair of flashes in one umbrella - ghetto style with gaffer's tape

Which filter do you find the most practical, or did you just buy a set? I was under the impression they were really expensive, but checking last night I found I was looking at prices of graduated filters not ND filters (the wonders of trying to do online shopping in Chinese

[Equilibrium8]

Actually, that's probably about right for your part of the world. I got 5 of them (ST-E3-RT wasn't released, and I wanted a master controller / spare) + the cost of the ST-E3-RT (arriving early next week -- paid an extra $60 to have one brought into the country for me, since Canon don't appear to know when they're arriving in NZ) - add to that overseas freight + taxes + the 4-Square (plus freight on that) - and I think I'm up to about $6000 NZD.

You making me all envious now. I've been debating whether or not I should replace/add to my Yongnuo 460 and 468 with the relatively cheap Yongnuo 560s for better GN.

[speedneeder]

Kenny, ND filters - there's lots of info on here about those. I bought a cheap Cokin P set with a couple graduated and a three stop ND filter. They work OK, but I do see a very slight color cast once in a while. I see it almost all the time if I stack them. If I was willing to spend the money, the singh-ray twistomatic thing would be my preference.
Flashes - don't think of upgrading, but rather adding to your collection
I have 5 flashes right now, 2 ETTL Canon types and 3 YN-560's. I use them all at different times (haven't used them all at once yet!). My recommendation to you on this one is to get a flash with ETTL functionality. I don't know of any that can't be used with your existing flashes.

[Colin Southern]

You making me all envious now. I've been debating whether or not I should replace/add to my Yongnuo 460 and 468 with the relatively cheap Yongnuo 560s for better GN.

I'd replace them with Canon 600EX-RTs! Either way, you NEED to find a way to operate them in HSS mode so that you can get your shutterspeed above X-Sync, and start getting some pleasing bokeh.1/1000th @ F2.81/3200th @ F2.8 - Remote flashes still working just fine

[Equilibrium8]

Kenny, ND filters - there's lots of info on here about those. I bought a cheap Cokin P set with a couple graduated and a three stop ND filter. They work OK, but I do see a very slight color cast once in a while. I see it almost all the time if I stack them. If I was willing to spend the money, the singh-ray twistomatic thing would be my preference.
Flashes - don't think of upgrading, but rather adding to your collection
I have 5 flashes right now, 2 ETTL Canon types and 3 YN-560's. I use them all at different times (haven't used them all at once yet!). My recommendation to you on this one is to get a flash with ETTL functionality. I don't know of any that can't be used with your existing flashes.

Thanks Brian. The cokin are the ones I saw. I'll get some of those and gels to start playing with.

The YN468 is ETTL, but not a very good flash. The 460 is stronger but has no zoom. It's probably about time I started learning how to use zoom.

[Equilibrium8]

I'd replace them with Canon 600EX-RTs! Either way, you NEED to find a way to operate them in HSS mode so that you can get your shutterspeed above X-Sync, and start getting some pleasing bokeh.1/1000th @ F2.81/3200th @ F2.8 - Remote flashes still working just fine

Great pictures Colin. Just checked local price on those 600EXs... I'll ignore that advice for now

Yea, realizing the importance of HSS. I'm using Phottix strato IIs now, and happy with the quality. Their HSS compatible aren't that much more. Maybe it would be good just to get the whole HSS/ETTL compatible models.

On a side note, while I was going through photos from a shoot last week, I found some of the chimping shots which I had fired off after I had accidentally bumped the shutter to 400, and at 400 there was NO banding at all (with the triggers that don't transmit HSS). ANy idea why that would be? I thought it was an absolute that banding would start after 250, and my tests at home have done exactly that.

[Colin Southern]

On a side note, while I was going through photos from a shoot last week, I found some of the chimping shots which I had fired off after I had accidentally bumped the shutter to 400, and at 400 there was NO banding at all (with the triggers that don't transmit HSS). ANy idea why that would be? I thought it was an absolute that banding would start after 250, and my tests at home have done exactly that.

Hi Kenny,

It depends on a couple of things ...

1. Crop-factor -v- Full Frame, and

2. Timing

It's possible to get away with about 1/400th on a crop-factor camera - after that you'll get banding starting from the bottom. A "dirty trick" can be to use that as a natural vignette, or (and I'm serious here) turn the camera upside down, and let the banding be over the sky portion of the shot (where flash wouldn't make any difference anyway).

PocketWizard exploit the timing with a technology called "Hypersync" (that can be good for as high as 1/500th), but personally, I prefer to just use HSS.

A lot of folks don't like the cost of the likes of 600EX-RT - but they cost less than buying something cheaper - realising you're frustrated by it - selling it - and then buying the 600EX-RTs

[Colin Southern]

The cokin are the ones I saw. I'll get some of those and gels to start playing with.

Cokin is to filter quality kinda like what a moped is to Moto GP racing ...

[speedneeder]

I didn't know the 468 was ETTL? ETTL-2?
I thought only the YN-565 ex did that.
Anyways, per Colin's comment, you may want to go top shelf. This MIGHT save you money in the future, and the quality is better in my experience. Though I do not agree that you are sure to sell and upgrade one day - a long term loss. For example, I still have and use my cheapo flashes . Also, you could use the same argument that if you go top shelf today, you will still have to sell and upgrade in a year or two to stay top shelf? I agree 100% that you should afford the highest quality your cash flow allows.
Cokin filters are the mopeds of the filter world, but I have never had anyone look at one of cokin filter photos and say, man something is wrong with this photo dude!

[Equilibrium8]

I didn't know the 468 was ETTL? ETTL-2?
I thought only the YN-565 ex did that.
Anyways, per Colin's comment, you may want to go top shelf. This MIGHT save you money in the future, and the quality is better in my experience. Though I do not agree that you are sure to sell and upgrade one day - a long term loss. For example, I still have and use my cheapo flashes . Also, you could use the same argument that if you go top shelf today, you will still have to sell and upgrade in a year or two to stay top shelf? I agree 100% that you should afford the highest quality your cash flow allows.
Cokin filters are the mopeds of the filter world, but I have never had anyone look at one of cokin filter photos and say, man something is wrong with this photo dude!

The 468 II is ETTL II. I have a first gen 468 and it is TTL, but I don't think it is ETTL II.

I see the same argument in the recording world often, as in buying the most expensive microphones and preamps is a much better investment than doing incremental upgrades. There I found it to be true, and I did indeed waste a lot of money on stepping stone products. But when it comes to periphereals, there often doesn't seem to be much of a quality difference (in some items). IMHO, I think pros use the more expensive gear more for reliability and longevity than quality.

Also, if you buy used products, some items will keep the same value. I sold my 450D last month for the same price I bought it for 2 years ago (OK, that was luck; DSLRs are not a good example for what I said, but I think you get my drift.)

[Colin Southern]

Cokin filters are the mopeds of the filter world, but I have never had anyone look at one of cokin filter photos and say, man something is wrong with this photo dude!

Speaking of Cokin filters, how are you getting on removing those weird colour casts these days?

[Colin Southern]

IMHO, I think pros use the more expensive gear more for reliability and longevity than quality.

Speaking personally, it's a number of things, like the reliability & longevity that a quality item delivers -- but it's also the performance. Using flashes as a case-in point, how many times have we heard of folks buying cheap flashes and finding ...

- No ETTL

- No HSS

- Inconsistent exposures from models that do have ETTL

- Models going into thermal protection after just a few high-power shots

- Flash tubes burning out

- Poor build quality

Kinda reminds me a bit of the time I needed a charger for my Nokia phone; the genuine product was $80, but one could buy a knock-off charger for $19.95. No kidding, I bought no less than THREE of those $19.95 knock-off chargers ... and then spent $80 on the genuine product. Total cost? Around $140.

With flashes, I think a lot of people don't fully understand the need or the requirement for them; they start off thinking it's only for on-camera use - so they buy a cheap one - then they learn that they need to get it off-camera at which point they discover that they need to find a way to trigger them - so they invest in a cheap optical trigger to go with the cheap flash, only to discover that the preflash from the camera triggers them prematurely - so they buy a cheap radio trigger, only to discover later on that it still doesn't support ETTL II - and after that hurdle they discover that they can't use HSS off camera, and thus have to shoot F11 outside instead of F2.8 - and so on and so forth. With the 600EX-RT series I can trigger them with radio - I have ETTL II - I have HSS - I can control up to 5 different groups - the flashes even report back to the master controller when they're ready to fire. They're not cheap, but then again, cameras and lenses and computers and editing software together cost a LOT more - and yet lighting makes probably more difference to the quality of the shot than the quality of the camera, lens, or PC. Unfortunately, Photography isn't a cheap hobby if one wants to constantly improve their work. I used to fly twin engine planes for a hobby (at $400 an hour) - and I swear that it cost me less than photography!