Night shot with flash ~ Tree Frog On Glass Wall (the reflections are neat)

[JBW]

ISO 100 ~ 1/30s ~ F/18 ~ -1.3 Flash Compensation

[Shadowman]

For a moment I thought I was going to have to look up another photography acronym. Nice effort, needs some love in the eyes.

[JBW]

For a moment I thought I was going to have to look up another photography acronym. Nice effort, needs some love in the eyes.

Malfunction of the fingers and eyes. The original shot had way too many bright spots in the eye. Perhaps I should have left one in?

[Dave Humphries]

I'm not sure it needed the -1.3 FEC, I'd like to see it brighter Brian - although I appreciate it's easy for me to say that after the event and acknowledge that a reshoot or bracketing may not have been possible in the 'posing' time available.

While I'm typing, can I just say that I'd give the composition a bit more headroom, by cropping less across the top, or even adding canvas if necessary.

HTH, Dave

[JBW]

I'm not sure it needed the -1.3 FEC, I'd like to see it brighter Brian - although I appreciate it's easy for me to say that after the event and acknowledge that a reshoot or bracketing may not have been possible in the 'posing' time available.

While I'm typing, can I just say that I'd give the composition a bit more headroom, by cropping less across the top, or even adding canvas if necessary.

HTH, Dave

I've missed your critiques. Help me out on this one. How, other than reducing flash intensity do I reduce the bright spot blow out on a slimy surface? I could have turned on some lights but would have lost the reflections.

The crop was a problem. There was lots left in the shot to use but the more room I gave the less powerful (to me ) the shot became.

[Mike Buckley]

How, other than reducing flash intensity do I reduce the bright spot blow out on a slimy surface?

Maybe a polarizer, but not practical in this situation. Another alternative is to shoot it and use a clone tool to eliminate it.

[JBW]

Maybe a polarizer, but not practical in this situation. Another alternative is to shoot it and use a clone tool to eliminate it.

I did clone out a lot of blown spots.

[Manfred M]

Turning down the flash is just going to darken everything up; the bright spots are still there, just darker. The problem is that your subject is also underexposed, so you really haven't fixed anything. When I open up a capture of your image, I don't see anything that is blown out, but the spots you see are really specular highlights (much like sunlight reflecting of waves) and you might not be able to avoid them.

Regardless, adding a bit more canvas on the top and brightening the shot up gives me this:

[JBW]

Turning down the flash is just going to darken everything up; the bright spots are still there, just darker. The problem is that your subject is also underexposed, so you really haven't fixed anything. When I open up a capture of your image, I don't see anything that is blown out, but the spots you see are really specular highlights (much like sunlight reflecting of waves) and you might not be able to avoid them.

Regardless, adding a bit more canvas on the top and brightening the shot up gives me this:

Which points out the compromises. More canvas is good but less dramatic and the ear is way overexposed but the reflections are superb.

[Manfred M]

Which points out the compromises. More canvas is good but less dramatic and the ear is way overexposed but the reflections are superb.

Okay. Here is my version of the body overlaid with the ear from your version to darken things up.



With respect to the extra canvas, you say it is less dramatic, but I say it is less cramped.

[JBW]

Okay. Here is my version of the body overlaid with the ear from your version to darken things up.



With respect to the extra canvas, you say it is less dramatic, but I say it is less cramped.

Ear looking better and how dull would it be if all of us had the same taste.

[Dave Humphries]

A slightly larger light source (than the bare flash head) would probably help Brian,

I bought a couple of different sized mini soft box things to mount on the front, they're only cheapies from Amazon. I'd use one of those for this kinda subject, although I never have shot a damp frog since getting my flash kit

I got the sort that do not require sticky back velcro to be attached to flash head, mine quickly attach with a loop affair and if they are prone to slide about, one of those stiff rubber bands (often used to attach gels) provides a bit of friction.

Other than that, I'm with Manfred; we cannot expect to correctly expose speculars and have a well exposed image, it has to be a compromise. Localised adjustments brushed in can help balance different areas that might cause trouble.

HTH, Dave

[JohnRostron]

With the benefit of the previous comments and sitting on the other side of the world (in a tree-frog free zone), I would have approached it this way.

If I were not using flash, I would have used the automatic exposure bracketing on my Sony. With flash I would have taken multiple shots with different flash compensation. I am assuming that the frog would sit still for the duratation. Given the reflections (which would not be specular), I would have used a polariser. Again I may have needed to use different rotation angles. In post-processing, I would probably use a median stack to eliminate highlights, along with cloning.

Note:specular reflections are only produced by metallic surfaces. Reflections from water (or a damp frog) would be polarised.

All I want now is a damp frog to demonstrate the point. My local frogs have been and gone, leaving lots of tadpoles!

John

[JBW]

With the benefit of the previous comments and sitting on the other side of the world (in a tree-frog free zone), I would have approached it this way.

If I were not using flash, I would have used the automatic exposure bracketing on my Sony. With flash I would have taken multiple shots with different flash compensation. I am assuming that the frog would sit still for the duratation. Given the reflections (which would not be specular), I would have used a polariser. Again I may have needed to use different rotation angles. In post-processing, I would probably use a median stack to eliminate highlights, along with cloning.

Note:specular reflections are only produced by metallic surfaces. Reflections from water (or a damp frog) would be polarised.

All I want now is a damp frog to demonstrate the point. My local frogs have been and gone, leaving lots of tadpoles!

John

They'll be back, though technically this was a slimy frog rather than a wet one. But probably not much difference. If I hadn't used the flash there would have been no shot. He was definitely not sitting still and all of my shots were different. I don't own a polariser. I did clone out a lot of spots. I didn't know a median stack reduced highlights.

[JBW]

A slightly larger light source (than the bare flash head) would probably help Brian,

I bought a couple of different sized mini soft box things to mount on the front, they're only cheapies from Amazon. I'd use one of those for this kinda subject, although I never have shot a damp frog since getting my flash kit

I got the sort that do not require sticky back velcro to be attached to flash head, mine quickly attach with a loop affair and if they are prone to slide about, one of those stiff rubber bands (often used to attach gels) provides a bit of friction.

Other than that, I'm with Manfred; we cannot expect to correctly expose speculars and have a well exposed image, it has to be a compromise. Localised adjustments brushed in can help balance different areas that might cause trouble.

HTH, Dave

I'll see if there are any of those mini soft box things in the local store. I agree it is all about the compromise. It looks like I missed the middle way that might have produced a better shot. And yes it does help.

[Dave Humphries]

Just a thought, based on this ....

I'll see if there are any of those mini soft box things in the local store.

If you, or perhaps your good lady, are in to origami, one could be fashioned from card and paper - might be worth a try in the first instance, given the availability issues you often have to deal with.

This is the style I have, it could be replicated in card and paper, secured by a rubber band. It wouldn't behave well if it got wet though, which may be a problem.

There are many variations, I think Richard showed a couple in another thread recently.

The main point of the type I use is the fact that the lit surface is several times larger (in square inches or mm) than the bare flash head.

The 'pringle tube' DIY macro flash enhancers don't really enlarge it much, although they do bring it much closer to the subject, which certainly helps.

Cheers, Dave

[JBW]

Just a thought, based on this ....



If you, or perhaps your good lady, are in to origami, one could be fashioned from card and paper - might be worth a try in the first instance, given the availability issues you often have to deal with.

This is the style I have, it could be replicated in card and paper, secured by a rubber band. It wouldn't behave well if it got wet though, which may be a problem.

There are many variations, I think Richard showed a couple in another thread recently.

The main point of the type I use is the fact that the lit surface is several times larger (in square inches or mm) than the bare flash head.

The 'pringle tube' DIY macro flash enhancers don't really enlarge it much, although they do bring it much closer to the subject, which certainly helps.

Cheers, Dave

My reality is that I can't always sign my name and I use a two second delay because my hands don't work that well. But Myra does origami so I'll see what we can come up with. Luckily I rarely use flash.

[Mike Buckley]

Note:specular reflections are only produced by metallic surfaces.

Assuming you're using the term, specular reflection, to be synonymous with the term, direct reflection, that statement is not true. (If you're using the term differently, I would need to know the definition you're using.) The most common direct reflections are produced by shiny metal, water and glass but other surfaces also produce them. Any surface that produces a reflection that is the color or close to the color of the light source is producing a direct reflection.

The term, specular reflection, means so many different things to different photographers that the term isn't used in Light: Science & Magic, which has been so widely recognized for so long that it is now in its fifth edition.

[Black Pearl]

Like everything we have to deal with compromises in our photography so you either correctly expose for the frog and loose the spectral highlights or you try and maintain them and have an image that is under exposed.

Which you choose is down to you as the photographer but I'd wager (the above comments seem to back this up) that a well exposed shot with blown spectral highlights is a preferable compromise.

[JBW]

Like everything we have to deal with compromises in our photography so you either correctly expose for the frog and loose the spectral highlights or you try and maintain them and have an image that is under exposed.

Which you choose is down to you as the photographer but I'd wager (the above comments seem to back this up) that a well exposed shot with blown spectral highlights is a preferable compromise.

Does seem to lean to that side But is it a well exposed shot that turns nighttime into the middle of the day? (he asks innocently)