I'm not so good with a flash but it is an interesting bug

[JBW]

[ionian]

Brian - I can't comment on the bug but this looks like a built in on-camera flash. This is not the right tool for the job - it has its uses for a little fill flash on a sunny day, but as a main light it is next to useless.

I'd urge you to get yourself a cheap off-camera flash to go with that lovely macro lens you have arriving soon. Check out this video, where the guy is using a budget set-up for a canon camera. Note the homemade flash diffuser and cable to take it off the camera. This sort of thing would give you sooooooo much more to work with, especially as your close up shots are getting better and better and you deserve a system that can work in low light.

[Manfred M]

Brian - I'm with Simon on this one. The built in flash on your camera is quite limited and I virtually never use mine for anything other than potentially triggering off-camera flash.

Look at your histogram as well; this shot is quite underexposed.

[Wavelength]

I too have such experience of using inbuilt flash; yes results are mostly discouraging; i think the appearance of the cockroach as if smeared with oil, may be due to a wrong exposure and reflection? I have to learn a lot

[xpatUSA]

Hi Brian,

Thunderstorms and torrential rain today, forcing me to download and play with your bug shot. As others have said, it's underexposed - in fact the EXIF says -2EV which I'm sure you're aware of.

But, the under-exposure preserved some of the specular highlights with fewer actually blown than if you had exposed for the insect itself. Which in turn meant that the shot could be recovered quite well by increasing the exposure compensation but keeping those highlight down with the highlight compression sliders in RT - while keeping an eye on the histogram:



Probably could do similar in the GIMP, eh?

[Manfred M]

Agreed this can be done Ted, but the whole idea is to get correct exposure and bringing up the exposure the way you show will also bring up the noise.

[Geoff F]

Some shiny bugs will always cause problems, Brian, no matter what you do in the way of settings. Even under dull conditions and no flash you will still get some relative 'hotspots' appearing. And underexposing makes everything else excessively dark.

Dull lighting can also mean long exposures which needs a tripod and no subject movement. Careful use of exposure compensation will frequently be needed.

I have successfully shot with the camera pop up flash; and a non macro lens with extension tubes. But you do need to get the settings exactly right which usually means a bit of experimentation before the main shot.

Do you have flash output compensation with that camera?

I use the same basic methods for all types of flash. Manually set the shutter speed, aperture and Iso to suit the conditions but take into account any limitations from your camera, such as max shutter speed with flash. Take a trial shot with flash output at the default setting (0) then vary the flash output compensation to suit your actual scene.

With practice, you should be able to get this fairly accurately for your first shot.

But remember, some bugs will always cause problems, even under studio lighting conditions. You can apply a bit of dusting make up to a person but that is tricky to apply to a live insect!

With those impossible subjects I often resort to a bit of cloning to match everything together.

[Shadowman]

Interesting look and very similar to some of your earlier submissions without flash. I like the richness of the browns however I also would consider what you would do if you printed this image; would you present as is or apply a bit of shadow/highlight adjustments?

[xpatUSA]

Agreed this can be done Ted, but the whole idea is to get correct exposure and bringing up the exposure the way you show will also bring up the noise.

Well, I did say that the shot was under-exposed and I did say that the shot - meaning the posted image - could be recovered quite well and then I showed how that could be done in RT.

In no way did I intend that as general advice on the shooting of bugs on the floor - my apologies to all if that's how it reads.

Please feel free to delete my post if you wish. No hard feelings.

[JBW]

Brian - I can't comment on the bug but this looks like a built in on-camera flash. This is not the right tool for the job - it has its uses for a little fill flash on a sunny day, but as a main light it is next to useless.

I'd urge you to get yourself a cheap off-camera flash to go with that lovely macro lens you have arriving soon. Check out this video, where the guy is using a budget set-up for a canon camera. Note the homemade flash diffuser and cable to take it off the camera. This sort of thing would give you sooooooo much more to work with, especially as your close up shots are getting better and better and you deserve a system that can work in low light.

This will require a few conversations with SWMBO.

[JBW]

Brian - I'm with Simon on this one. The built in flash on your camera is quite limited and I virtually never use mine for anything other than potentially triggering off-camera flash.

Look at your histogram as well; this shot is quite underexposed.

Indeed it is. To compensate for the flash I dropped the exposure compensation by 2 full stops. The beast was moving and it seemed the best way at the time.

And as much as it is not so good a flash without it there would have been no shot.

[JBW]

I too have such experience of using inbuilt flash; yes results are mostly discouraging; i think the appearance of the cockroach as if smeared with oil, may be due to a wrong exposure and reflection? I have to learn a lot

you and me both.

[Manfred M]

Well, I did say that the shot was under-exposed and I did say that the shot - meaning the posted image - could be recovered quite well and then I showed how that could be done in RT.

In no way did I intend that as general advice on the shooting of bugs on the floor - my apologies to all if that's how it reads.

Please feel free to delete my post if you wish. No hard feelings.

Ted, I totally agree with what you have written. The point I was trying to make was aimed more at Brian as he shown a tendency to underexpose. Getting a proper exposure is just (if not more important) with a flash image than with one using ambient light.

Flash images often have drop-off which creates areas that are in shadow, which means noise can be more of an issue when the image is adjusted in post.

[JBW]

Hi Brian,

Thunderstorms and torrential rain today, forcing me to download and play with your bug shot. As others have said, it's underexposed - in fact the EXIF says -2EV which I'm sure you're aware of.

But, the under-exposure preserved some of the specular highlights with fewer actually blown than if you had exposed for the insect itself. Which in turn meant that the shot could be recovered quite well by increasing the exposure compensation but keeping those highlight down with the highlight compression sliders in RT - while keeping an eye on the histogram:



Probably could do similar in the GIMP, eh?

Between Gimp and Sony Express I can get close. One of these days I shall give RT another go. It just seems to crash a lot on my Lenovo.

[JBW]

Well, I did say that the shot was under-exposed and I did say that the shot - meaning the posted image - could be recovered quite well and then I showed how that could be done in RT.

In no way did I intend that as general advice on the shooting of bugs on the floor - my apologies to all if that's how it reads.

Please feel free to delete my post if you wish. No hard feelings.

No one gets to delete posts on my threads without my approval and I like your post. You are both r9ght. It would have been better to have better in camera exposure and as it was shot it can be reasonably recovered for what it is, a quick late at night shot of an interesting bug.

[JBW]

Interesting look and very similar to some of your earlier submissions without flash. I like the richness of the browns however I also would consider what you would do if you printed this image; would you present as is or apply a bit of shadow/highlight adjustments?

If I was to take this to the outer limits it would be done in a similar fashion to this

[JBW]

Some shiny bugs will always cause problems, Brian, no matter what you do in the way of settings. Even under dull conditions and no flash you will still get some relative 'hotspots' appearing. And underexposing makes everything else excessively dark.

Dull lighting can also mean long exposures which needs a tripod and no subject movement. Careful use of exposure compensation will frequently be needed.

I have successfully shot with the camera pop up flash; and a non macro lens with extension tubes. But you do need to get the settings exactly right which usually means a bit of experimentation before the main shot.

Do you have flash output compensation with that camera?

I use the same basic methods for all types of flash. Manually set the shutter speed, aperture and Iso to suit the conditions but take into account any limitations from your camera, such as max shutter speed with flash. Take a trial shot with flash output at the default setting (0) then vary the flash output compensation to suit your actual scene.

With practice, you should be able to get this fairly accurately for your first shot.

But remember, some bugs will always cause problems, even under studio lighting conditions. You can apply a bit of dusting make up to a person but that is tricky to apply to a live insect!

With those impossible subjects I often resort to a bit of cloning to match everything together.

Yes i do have flash adjustments which I should have remembered last night. I will have a go at your technique. but you failed to mention one additional problem... the hingry Tuko patiently waiting for me to leave the scene.

[Shadowman]

If I was to take this to the outer limits it would be done in a similar fashion to this

That one is more of your evolving style, this one reminds me of some of your earlier work; not so much the underexposure but your desire for dynamic colors that pop. I'm not saying you should revert to your older style; just recognizing some of the elements you were known for.

[JBW]

That one is more of your evolving style, this one reminds me of some of your earlier work; not so much the underexposure but your desire for dynamic colors that pop. I'm not saying you should revert to your older style; just recognizing some of the elements you were known for.

I hope you hit the key concept with your phase 'evolving style'. I have found that the Sony allows me incredible freedom compared to the Fujifilm. I hope the new lenses when they arrive will allow me even more.

I have found that my photography marches in step with my moods. Sometimes I pop other times I mellow.

[Geoff F]

Yes i do have flash adjustments which I should have remembered last night. I will have a go at your technique. but you failed to mention one additional problem... the hingry Tuko patiently waiting for me to leave the scene.

Try a few experiments with static subjects, like flowers etc, Brian. Once you get the knack of this technique you should be able to quickly set everything fairly accurately in just a few seconds.

When I got my first modern 'self thinking' external flash unit I started working along the same lines as the old fixed output flashes, where you had to place pieces of paper (or various diffusers) over the head once you started getting close. I couldn't get any success with it and even my 'normal scene' shots came out over/under exposed or with motion blur due to very long shutter speeds.

Eventually I read up on the subject and did a bit thinking for myself; where I suddenly realised that if my flash output was going to be variable I needed to keep every other setting static. Otherwise it was just a case of 'chasing my own tail' and getting nowhere; except becoming more exasperated!