Fun at the park - C&C appreciated

[D L]

About time I actually post a photo. Usually I self-critique them into oblivion before they even get posted.



1/200, f/16, ISO 400, 95mm focal length on crop frame Nikon, TTL on-camera fill flash

A few comments:
Why ISO 400, I hear you ask? Um, I guess that's the ISO I had set from the previous time I used the camera. There was plenty of light for ISO 100. I did think something seemed a bit odd, but I didn't notice until too late.

I cropped the top to change it from 3x2 to 4x5.

I'd especially appreciate comments on
1. Composition - does the play equipment frame him, or just look a bit tired and in need of a coat of paint? Is the background ok despite the f/16 aperture? And anything else "compositionally" that strikes you
2. Post-processing - everything Oh, yeah, I shot in RAW and I've been using Aftershot Pro 2. Theoretically it should be able to pretty much do anything that Lightroom does. I haven't delved into the pixel editors yet.

Any other constructive comments also appreciated.

[chauncey]

When you left home that day, did you know what you were going to shoot?
Might serve you well to check your camera's settings in advance.

Crank up the SS to allow some action shots compensated by opening the lens to about 2-4 stops
above minimum. And, like you noticed, drop the ISO. This particular image turned out fine but,
probably wouldn't have been so nice with some subject movement.

Are you satisfied with skin tones, white balance?

[Shadowman]

Composition is good, if you wanted to add a sense of danger or heroics to the shot you could have shot from a lower angle. Processing looks fine.

[DEAN01]

Good shot, even with the "mistake" in ISO. I agree with John, a slightly lower angle may have added "sense of danger."

[Geoff F]

Iso 400 is the 'default setting' for my cameras, David.

Possibly you could have opened up the aperture to F8 and dropped the Iso to 200 but I wouldn't have wanted a slower shutter speed when subject movement could have been an issue. And your shot settings have worked OK.

Maybe you could brighten the midtones just a fraction but looks good to me otherwise.

[bnnrcn]

The image looks good to me, lovely boy.

[Dave Humphries]

Hi David,

The composition is ok, if mine I would trim a little more off the top.

Regarding the camera settings; it is the aperture of f/16 I find the odd choice, I'm sure it gave more Depth of Field than the shot needed.
The shutter speed should have been higher, although you got away with it.
I shoot wildlife with long lens and rarely go down to 200, shooting at 400 on a sunny day and regularly between 800 & 2000, sometimes even higher - don't be scared of higher ISOs, just be sure to expose fully when the light falls (or if you need a higher shutter speed and narrow aperture).

If you have a DX Nikon, the base ISO is (very likely) 200, so don't go below that unless you really need to, it will restrict the dynamic range (compared to 200) - not an issue on this shot admittedly.

With regard to PP, I would clone over the green label - it is impossible to view the image without reading the text - is it relevant to the shot? - absolutely not - so it should go.

Hope that helps, Dave

[D L]

Thanks for all the helpful comments!

I cropped a little more off the top and cloned out the sign on the side. (thanks Dave)
I also brightened the midtones. That means using curves? Right??? Does it look better? I gotta calibrate this monitor.

Chauncey, point taken and hopefully lesson learned on checking the camera settings from the beginning. The skin tones look alright to me (but I gotta calibrate this monitor). I'm also not great at spotting those things. In other critiques I've read on here, someone will mention a blue cast or whatever and usually I only notice once its been fixed. I set white balance off a white spot on his shirt, then tweaked slightly warmer.

John, I like the idea of the low angle. I'll experiment a bit more with that next chance.

A bit more explanation on my shutter speed and aperture. I was originally not using flash and due to the strong back lighting, I was not getting as good exposure on the face. From memory I was around f/8 and something a lot faster on shutter speed, like 1/640 ish.

When I put the flash on, I was limited to 1/200 as the fastest sync speed available (DX Nikon D3000). I do have ISO 100 as base ISO available. 1/200 was giving me f/16 for ambient exposure (at ISO 400).

Thanks for the encouragement Binnur and Dean. Yes, I think he's lovely too... most of the time

[harmon1]

I Like!

[D L]

I Like!

Thanks Harmon

[mknittle]

Looks good to me David.

[rpcrowe]

A bit more explanation on my shutter speed and aperture. I was originally not using flash and due to the strong back lighting, I was not getting as good exposure on the face. From memory I was around f/8 and something a lot faster on shutter speed, like 1/640 ish.

When I put the flash on, I was limited to 1/200 as the fastest sync speed available (DX Nikon D3000). I do have ISO 100 as base ISO available. 1/200 was giving me f/16 for ambient exposure (at ISO 400).

Thanks for the encouragement Binnur and Dean. Yes, I think he's lovely too... most of the time

Wonderful image of a handsome lad!

Me thinks that fill flash is one of the least used and most important techniques in outdoor photography!

A hotshoe flash with High Speed Sync capability is certainly an asset when using fill flash because your camera's maximum sync speed will not allow you full access to the range of f/stops. A sync speed of 1/200 or 1/250 second (depending on the camera) will not allow you to use a wide aperture when shooting in bright light (bright sun is when you can make best use of the fill flash capability)

HSS would allow you to shoot at your lens' widest aperture. In this case you could have shot at f/4 (given your lens having that aperture at 95mm.) The f/4 aperture would have blurred the background nicely and separated the subject from the foliage. That is one advantage in having a wider aperture in a longer lens...

So many photographers malign HHS because you lose some exposure when using HSS. However, it is not always taken in consideration that when using a faster shutter speed, you also use a wider f/stop which will make up for most (within about one-stop) exposure loss. Additionally, I often use a -1 or -2 stop FEC when shooting fill flash. Therefore the one-stop or so loss using HSS is really a moot subject. The fill flash is not used to provide the main light for the subject but, rather to just fill in the shadows and to balance the subject with the background...

I don't know the electronic aspects of allowing the multi burst HSS flash but, it would certainly be nice to have HSS in the camera's built-in flash. My massage to Canon, I'll gladly trade the "print from camera" capability for HSS in the onboard flash...

I think that it is often the same people criticizing HSS that say, I don't use flash indoors because "it looks terrible" (translated to say, "I don't know how to creatively use flash indoors!"

[D L]

Looks good to me David.

Thanks Mark

[D L]

Wonderful image of a handsome lad!

I don't know the electronic aspects of allowing the multi burst HSS flash but, it would certainly be nice to have HSS in the camera's built-in flash.

Thanks Richard.
My camera won't support HSS (auto-fp sync) no matter what flash I use. You'd think this would just be a firmware upgrade, so it's a bit annoying.

[William W]

It's a good shot.

One of the best elements is the Rapport with the Subject.

I don't see that much "trepidation" - I see more wanting to show how confident that he is - but using a slightly lower camera angle would also underscore that interpretation, too.

*

. . . 1. Composition - does the play equipment frame him, or just look a bit tired and in need of a coat of paint? Is the background ok despite the f/16 aperture? And anything else "compositionally" that strikes you

I’d try square format.

My Viewer’s Eye is not overly distracted by the large DoF.

However -

I think that taking out the mass of Blue, yet still utilize the edges of the slide to bring the Viewer's Eye into the Boy would be a good idea. The mass of Blue is just wasted Image Realestate and is distracting, in fact I find it more distracting than the 'in focus' green background.

Utilizing the two Yellow Bars either side of the Subject will create a better illusion of depth. Those two sets of bars, either side of him are slanting backwards towards the Subject.

Also adding a frame (or two) will add more to illusion of depth, moving into the Boy and will also serve to further null the effect of the in focus background, because most viewer’s eyes will stop at the Boy.

I think that Square Format will also exacerbate the Viewers Eye’s concentration on the Boy and not the background.

Here are my thoughts on the crop in illustration:


*

Any other constructive comments also appreciated.

I concur with many of the previous comments – the main elements I noticed worth commenting on and worth reiterating:

I’d also remove the sticker, and for the exact reasons that Dave Humphries gave.

Re the ISO - In that respect, I don’t usually check my gear before I leave, but I concur with that advice by William to do so. I do have “Resting Positions” for my digital cameras and they go to bed set at ISO400, therefore I already know when I wake them up they are at ISO400, though I am not sure if Geoff meant “default” as also meaning “resting”.

1/200s is not safe and for Kids Portraiture when shooting in Available Light, though I see no evidence of Subject Movement in this particular image.

***

1/200, f/16, ISO 400, 95mm focal length on crop frame Nikon, TTL on-camera fill flash . . . When I put the flash on, I was limited to 1/200 as the fastest sync speed available (DX Nikon D3000). I do have ISO 100 as base ISO available. 1/200 was giving me f/16 for ambient exposure (at ISO 400). . .I cropped the top to change it from 3x2 to 4x5.

I suggest that you make a more detailed analysis of your use of the Flash as Fill.

When I first looked at the image there seemed to be no evidence of Flash in the shot and I was surprised to read in the Shooting Specs, that you provided, that Flash as Fill was listed.

And then that really piqued my interest.

*

With a quick analysis of the shot I find:

> before the original crop the long side is about 4~5ft FoV at the Plane of Sharp Focus (Field of View)

> That FoV using FL ≈ 100mm on APS-C that FoV renders the Shooting Distance, SD ≈ 20ft ~ 25ft.

> pulling the shot at F16, (IF you were at ISO100) you’d need a Flash with a GN = 350(ft @ ISO100).

> but you had bumped to ISO400 so, at ISO400 you’d need GN ≈ 175(ft @ ISO100)

> (most GN’s are given in METERS) so that requires a Flash with GN ≈ 50(meters @ ISO100)

I don’t know of an "Hot Shoe" flash that is that powerful. To have that power you'd need to be using a Metz Hammerhead 60 or 70 Series.

Maybe there's a mistake in the metal computations above, I did do them on the hop and rounded as I went: but on second glance I still think that you were way too far back and well beyond your Flash's MAXIMUM WORKING DISTANCE, no matter what Flash Unit it is that you have, so maybe have a check of the GN on your Flash and think through exactly how far was your SD for that shot.

*

HSS was mentioned - Then also note: that if one uses any mechanism like HSS (High Speed Sync) to allow a Shutter Speed that is faster than the Camera's Maximum Sync Speed, then the Flash's MAXIMUM WORKING DISTANCE is reduced, often substantially reduced.

WW

[Barbara Ponder]

Any photo with a boy that adorable is going to be good in my book!!!!

[rpcrowe]

Bill makes a good point when he mentions, "HSS was mentioned - Then also note: that if one uses any mechanism like HSS (High Speed Sync) to allow a Shutter Speed that is faster than the Camera's Maximum Sync Speed, then the Flash's MAXIMUM WORKING DISTANCE is reduced, often substantially reduced."

That is definitely true, especially if you were depending on the flash to provide your primary light. However, you don't need a lot of power to add things like catch lights to this boy's eyes. If there were no catchlights, his face would have lost some life.

I have used flash hotshoe when shooting animals from long distances. The flash didn't do anything but provide catchlights but, those catchlights were important. In fact, I will frequently carry my old 420EX or even my miniscule 270EX-ii for outdoor use because they are so light and easy to carry...

[William W]

. . . you don't need a lot of power to add things like catch lights to this boy's eyes. If there were no catchlights, his face would have lost some life. . .

I absolutely agree, 100%. Good point.

*

I noticed the catch lights but I did not comment on them.

In hindsight I could have been clearer in my meaning when I commented on the use of Flash, thanks for bringing that to my attention Richard.

For clarity now: ALL the comments that I made about the Flash were in relation to statement in the Opening Post

"TTL on-camera fill flash"

My response being twofold:

1. that there appears to be zero "Fill Flash"

2. at that assumed Shooting distance, Fill Flash would have been impossible

WW

[D L]

Bill, I prefer your crop and appreciate the analysis and advice on composition.

As for the flash conundrum. I'm not sure. I also thought at f16, the flash might struggle. It's a Nikon sb400. Guide number 30 (metres?) at ISO 200 according to the Nikon website. It doesn't zoom, so no help there. I'm not up with the maths for flash working distance, so just gave it a go.
Your estimate of working distance might be slightly long, but I think your comments probably still stand. I think I'll take the tape measure to the park next time and check. Maybe a bit of reflection off the slide?

I have some shots taken before I added the flash, which I wasn't happy with. It would be weird if I added a flash which wasn't doing anything apart from decrease my shutter speed and consequently force me to close up my aperture, yet I was happier with the shot. I'll revisit those when I get home.

I feel a flash experiment is in order. Especially since I'll be able to confirm that working distance in a few days.


Eliminating unnecessary flash would be a positive step in my photography.

Thanks again for the interest and assistance.

[D L]

I can't seem to edit on my phone. That guide number of 30 is going to be in feet, isn't it 😊 oops