Balancing Natural Light with flash in indoor photography

[Manfred M]

this is astonishing as how all these shots could be taken without the help of flash!!

Sanjib - it's not hard at all. Select camera settings to ensure that the faces are properly exposed. In a "classic" backlit situation, you will find that the background will be quite light and possibly even blown out. None of Bill's images are purely back lit as the light is often coming from a side as well.

Diffuse lighting as in the 4th and 5th image will also ensure that there is light on the face.

If you are looking at pure backlighting with strong light coming through a window or from a flash modifier, you will get a pure black on white silhouette with no details on the subject.

You can't tell, but the model was looking right at me when I took this shot. You can see her outline, some hair and the delicate materials on the sleeves of the top she was wearing.

[cauger61]

Sanjib - it's not hard at all. Select camera settings to ensure that the faces are properly exposed. In a "classic" backlit situation, you will find that the background will be quite light and possibly even blown out. None of Bill's images are purely back lit as the light is often coming from a side as well.

Diffuse lighting as in the 4th and 5th image will also ensure that there is light on the face.

If you are looking at pure backlighting with strong light coming through a window or from a flash modifier, you will get a pure black on white silhouette with no details on the subject.

You can't tell, but the model was looking right at me when I took this shot. You can see her outline, some hair and the delicate materials on the sleeves of the top she was wearing.

Thnx a lot, Manfred for your encouraging response.

[William W]

. . . pls. elaborate how could you make the faces of your subjects well exposed against bright backgrounds? There are opposite scenarios as well; as for example the "Mother and Child" and "Young Athlete" images. Did you use long shutter on a tripod? what was the lens/. . . helping me to expand my photographic horizon. . .

Hello,

The main reason why I posted the examples was to underscore my advice for you NOT to embark on your Photography journey bound by “rules” such as “XXX is essential”.

Vary rarely is anything “essential”, though the hype and misinformation on the internet will continually tell you it is: and that was my point.

Anyway – thanks for the kind remarks about my images.

***

To answer your questions:

Available Light Portraiture is my main passion. I understand and I use Flash, I used to use Flash quite a lot – in the Studio, on site for Portraiture and at Weddings, but despite having a lot of Flash gear and using that gear capably and profitably, using Flash doesn’t really do it for me. Available Light Portraiture is (generally) quicker, less intrusive, lighter weight and for me has more an adrenaline rush. That’s a brief background.

How do you make the faces well exposed against a light background? That is, in theory, quite simple. Let’s look at that theory.

In simple terms there is a range of Light Levels in any scene and only one light level can be ‘exposed correctly’.

Let’s explain what I mean by ‘exposed correctly’. Have a look at the first portrait of the man. The area which is ‘exposed correctly’ is down his RH side Cheek, RH Ear and an area underneath of his Neck and the top parts of his R Hand, the remainder of his skin is in ‘shadow’ - and for this discussion is termed ‘underexposed’.

In practical terms, to make that Photo, I metered the ‘sun side of the face’ and made the exposure parameters (i.e. Aperture, Shutter Speed and ISO) to suit a ‘correct exposure’ for that area.

That is in simple terms the beginning and the end of it for mostly all Available Light Portraiture: you need to choose an area of the Subject where you want the ‘correct exposure’, meter for that area and then the reamining light and dark fall where they do.

This means of course there may be areas of the scene which blow out. In most cases we don’t want this to happen, so most of the time we are aware when the scene has a large Dynamic Range to be aware if there will be any large area that will blow-out and we avoid that by adjusting something - I would tend to mostly always adjust my CAMERA VIEWPOINT, (see later comments).

A large area of blow out is often distracting to the Viewer’s Eye. Arguably the Portrait of the Bride has an area of window light which is blown out in the background - to some this might be too severe, but I think that there is enough of her skin tone (her Back) and detail in the Gown to keep the Viewer’s attention focused there and not on the very bright window.

On the other hand, when making Available Light Portraits, there are other extreme Lighting Scenarios when some or a lot of the Image Palette will go to black-black. (as you noted) this is so in the images “Mother and Child” and especially “Young Athlete”. Using the existing light this way, is akin to how spotlights are used in a theatre. Again the technique is to meter the face and make the exposure parameters suit the face to be 'correctly exposed'.

It is important to understand that a Light Meter is a sophisticated bit of gear, but it is quite stupid. Even the educated varieties in modern cameras, with their many metering modes and various in built computations, are not as intelligent as you.

Most of the time I use the Meter in my camera; for this type of Portraiture, when there is any major backlit component, or if the lighting is like a theatre spot light, I use Spot Metering Mode.

Spot metering in a DSLR is not really “spot” (i.e. 1° angle), but it is close enough, and I will (usually) meter off the Sun or Light side of the face – OR – in the case of the backlit Bride of her bare back.

It is important to note another dumbness of light meters – they think everything is near “Photographic Grey”.

Caucasian skin is not P. Grey, African skin is not P. Grey, Caucasian skin with a good suntan is not P. Grey either, Asian/Indian subcontinent skin is often closer, but it not usually P. Grey, . . . etc, so you need to be aware, especially when making use of the ‘Spot Meter’ that you will need to adjust the exposure for the type of skin that the meter is reading.

As a guide:

When spot metering off the lit portion of typical Caucasian Skin, then this requires you to open up about 1~1½ Stops (“Plus” Exposure Compensation, i.e. use a longer exposure time, a larger aperture, an higher ISO).

Alternatively metering off moderately dark African Skin requires you to close down about 1~1½ Stops. (“Minus” Exposure Compensation, i.e. use a shorter exposure time, a smaller aperture, a lower ISO)

The exposure compensation to use when spot metering off different skin types, is something that becomes somewhat intuitive with PRACTICE.

You asked about the gear: generally I use very fast Prime Lenses.

Do not mistake this to mean that I advocate Prime Lenses as being superior to Zoom lenses – they are not.

I happen to like using very fast lenses (i.e. lenses with a very large available aperture) and I like using Prime Lenses, partly because when I started, Prime Lenses were basically all we had in the class of ‘very good ~ excellent quality’; additionally (quality) film tended to be very slow (low ISO), so a fast lens meant we could stop action and/or make images in low light. And, 40 years ago, most Zoom Lenses were, by comparison to Prime Lenses, very slow.

Nowadays there are TWO efficiencies – Digital Cameras are very good at High ISO and fast Zoom Lenses are very good quality and relatively inexpensive.

As one example, (for a modern Canon or Nikon “Full Frame” DSLR) a 24 to 70 F/2.8 Zoom will cost less than a set of Fast Prime Lenses: (24, 35, 50 and 85) and will be more efficient (no lens changes) and for 99% of situations will get close to the same shot as any one of those 4 Primes, even if those Primes are very fast (i.e. around F/1.4). But, although I own two quality zoom lenses I tend to use Prime Lenses, and I do use those Prime Lenses at or near wide open.

Specifically the gear and basic tech specs for the images (top to bottom)

Portrait of Man: EOS 5D Series Camera, EF 135/2L, at F/2 hand held, shutter about 1/400s
Mother and Child: EOS 5D Series Camera, EF 135/2L, at F/2 hand held, shutter about 1/15s,
Young Athlete: EOS 5D Series Camera, EF 100/2.8, at F/2.8 hand held, shutter about 1/8s
Bride: EOS 20D Camera, EF 50/1.4 at about F/2 hand held shutter at about 1/125s
French Army: EOS 5D Series Camera, EF 24 to 105/4 IS at F/4 hand held, shutter about 1/30s

Mostly always I use the Camera in Manual Mode - again this does not imply that using Manual Mode means a superior photographer; simply it is just how I like to work. I find it easier technique to adjust the exposure parameters of Shutter Speed and Aperture, directly, than to use the 'Exposure Compensation' mechanism in the camera to override the meter's selected exposure. For this type of work I do not use Auto ISO, I set the ISO to allow for a range of suitable Shutter Speeds, as usually I have the Aperture set to a very limited range - for the majority of Available Light Portraiture I use my Lens wide open or close to wide open.

One element that you should have noted is that some of the Shutter Speeds are quite slow: that was intentional, either to allow a lower ISO (Mother and Child and Young Athlete) or to capture Subject Movement (French Army).

If you want to pursue Available Light Portraiture, then it is important to understand that you need to PRACTICE camera SHOOTING TECHNIQUE for Slow Shutter Speeds – or – use lenses with Image Stabilization – in any case PRACTICE is still very important. Tripods for this type of work, are IMO, useless - however a Monopod can be a good friend, but using one can slow you down.

My last comment is about “seeing” the light.

When using Flash, we mostly ALWAYS create all or most of the Lighting Scenario – even if using only Fill Flash, the Fill (often) has a substantial impact on the overall Lighting Scenario.

But with Available Light, (and NOT using a Reflector or Diffuser) there is no manipulation of light available to us – so essentially we are usually always dependent upon CAMERA VIEWPOINT and SUBJECT POSITION to gain the best Lighting Scenario.

To do this effectively it takes ANTICIPATION and also a lot of PRACTICE.

I think that if any fan were to ask Muttiah Muralitharan how he perfected his Doosra, they would absolutely accept that, after some technical instruction, his advice would be “now go practice with a cricket ball – any cricket ball will do – but practice, practice and then practice”

Yet I am amazed at the number of Photographers who believe they’ll make better photos by buying a new camera, an expensive lens and all they need to do is use it one hour, every second weekend.

Good luck with your journey – Photography will give you back more than you put in – just remember to put in a truck load, and regularly.

WW

[Manfred M]

Excellent write up (as usual) Bill.

On the other hand, with the exception of street photography, I often employ either small flash, studio flash or reflectors in my work for the simple reason that it improves the light on the subject and makes the image stand out from the rest. While it is a pain to cart along the gear, I like the result of using on-location (i.e. not in the studio) flash.

The natural light and light from the flash are an important elements in the first three images.


1. Bounced Small Flash







2, Location shoot with studio light to fill in back-light setting







3. Studio light out doors at home - underexpose the background by 2 - 3 stops and properly expose the subject







Of course, I also use studio flash on location indoors - no natural light component at all in these two shots




4. At the recording studio






5. Model shoot in abandoned paper mill

[William W]

Yes. Agreed. Especially Fill Flash with a Speedlite, when shooting outdoors is a skill worth mastering, IMO. It is a mainstay of many Wedding Photographers: either on Camera Fill or using the Flash off camera via remote link as Fill (and usually an assistant) or using an Off Camera Cord, I used the latter technique mainly, holding the camera in one hand and the flash in the other connected by an Off Camera Cord.

And the main topic of this conversation is indeed about FLASH. As I mentioned, it is of concern to me when (especially a novice) may be adhering to absolutes - that was the only reason for my deviation.

WW

[Manfred M]

And the main topic of this conversation is indeed about FLASH. As I mentioned, it is of concern to me when (especially a novice) may be adhering to absolutes - that was the only reason for my deviation.

Agreed Bill - there are no absolutes and understanding that is critical to moving forward as a photographer.

That being said, flash photography seems to be something that intimidates even seasoned photographers; flash photography workshops whether they be small flash or studio flash are some of the most popular ones at the photo clubs I belong to. We have some members returning to the same workshop year after year.

[William W]

Re Flash as Fill and Flash as Key - WHEN COMBINED WITH EXISTING LIGHT

Based upon many observations, conversations, workshops and classrooms - I think that one stumbling step can be overcome with the understanding (maybe "the concept" is a better term to use) - that there are in effect TWO exposures to be considered.

The FLASH exposure and the AMBIENT exposure.

I have noticed with many people, when that light bulb moment hits home, there's progress and understanding at a rapid rate.

I have found it is sometimes difficult to convey that concept in writing - much easier face to face with a digital camera, flash and monitor at hand.

WW

[cauger61]

Excellent write up (as usual) Bill.

On the other hand, with the exception of street photography, I often employ either small flash, studio flash or reflectors in my work for the simple reason that it improves the light on the subject and makes the image stand out from the rest. While it is a pain to cart along the gear, I like the result of using on-location (i.e. not in the studio) flash.

The natural light and light from the flash are an important elements in the first three images.


1. Bounced Small Flash







2, Location shoot with studio light to fill in back-light setting







3. Studio light out doors at home - underexpose the background by 2 - 3 stops and properly expose the subject







Of course, I also use studio flash on location indoors - no natural light component at all in these two shots




4. At the recording studio






5. Model shoot in abandoned paper mill

Thnx u Manfred for the excellent exposition. I am greatly "illuminated" by all of your "flash" exposure!!

[rpcrowe]

I enjoy watching the Manny Ortiz series of YouTube videos on portraiture. I think he does an excellent job of balancing fill flash with ambient light. Here is a very quick video on his technique...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50-1kK9bot4

However Irene Rudnyk seldom seems to use fill flash in her portraits and yet also comes out with come very nice portraits. However, there is a lot more post processing involved with her work...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khJTaAjwJ5Q&t=357s

IMO. it is relatively easy to get a good exposure of a backlit subject. The trick is to get that exposure without blowing out the background as you might do when the subject who is in shadow from the backlighting is exposed to bring us those shadows.

There are two ways IMO to get a shot like that:

#1 Expose for the shadowed portion of the subject and let the background fall where it may. This can resulting a high key image or it can just look like the background is washed out. However, you can control this (IMO) with your choice of how much of the background you include in the image. It is easiest to tightly crop a backlit subject...

#2 Adding fill light to the subject to somewhat balance the backlit portion of the subject with the general ambient exposure. This can be done by using a reflective surface: either introducing a reflector to give your subject some additional light or by taking advantage of a natural reflector such as a light colored wall. In this case the color of that "natural reflector" is very important because it can add a tint to your image which might or might not be flattering.

Using flash, either off camera or on camera can add enough light to balance your subject's exposure with that of the background.

a. Using the camera's built in flash is (IMO) not a good option because of the small size of that flash combined with how close it is to the lens. Additionally most in camera flashes that I am familiar with do not allow high speed sync.

b. Using an off camera flash on a bracket which will elevate the flash a distance over the lens. There are many brackets of this type available or you can do a DIY bracket. The advantage to this type of rig is that you can use it when there is too much of a crowd to be able to place your flash on a light stand. Another advantage is that you can use any number of modifiers on your flash. The best bracket is one that will maintain your flash directly over the lens in both vertical and horizontal camera positions. This is one of my brackets which I modified from a Custom Bracket I found used on eBay.

I use this with my 70-200mm lens and a small softbox modifier. I switch from horizontal to vertical camera positions by using the tripod collar and simply rotating the camera. When I shoot with a lens without a tripod collar, I will use an Arca Compatible L bracket in conjunction with the Arca Compatible clamp on the bracket. There are also brackets which allow you to flip the camera from horizontal to vertical.


3. Finally, using a flash on a dedicated light stand with a large modifier is probably the best way to creatively add additional lighting. However, the use of this technique is dependent upon your surroundings. Can you safely have your flash a few feet away from you or will people or wind interfere with your shooting? Having an assistant is the easiest way to work like this. By the way, using an off camera flash trigger that allows you to adjust the power of your flash from the camera position is very helpful. That is not absolutely required but, it sure makes life easier...

There are some other YouTube channels that offer tips on using fill flash or shooting portraits without the fill. The final result is the key, not how you get there:

Fill flash: FJH Photography: This young man is developing into a good portrait photographer
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC1E...FajvflmxNIgMqA

Available light: Julia Trotti: I just love watching this beautiful young woman as much as I like her photography:
https://www.youtube.com/results?sear...y=julia+trotti

[Manfred M]

Sanjib - Images 2, 3, 4 and 5 in #44 use what Richard describes in his point #3

I pointed the flash at the overhanging ceiling in #1. I never use the methods Richard shows in his pictures any more because I don't like the quality of light they produce. They are an improvement from the built-in flash in the camera and direct hot-shoe mounted flash. I have used them in the past. The only time I might consider using them is during an event where none of the better options can be used.

[rpcrowe]

I only use this system outdoors when I am not able to use a light with a large modifier on a stand due to crowds or wind.

Indoors, I always bounce light and often modifying it with a Joe Demb Flash Diffuser Professional...

[cauger61]

Dear Manfred,

I would once again like to reinitiate this discussion further, though these were not indoor shots. I took these images using 70-300 f/4.5-6.3 lens at 300mm on Nikon D5300 in the early hours of morning. May you pls. look into them? My query is, don't you think that the photos appear soft and lacking contrast? Of course, it was a cloudy day with overcast sky. I tried with P, A and M modes, but all with the same results. Of course, I must mention that I forgot to use tripod. However, I set ISO as Auto with maxm at 3200 and minimum shutter at 1/60. Do they appear less sharp because of f/6.3 at 300mm? Could it have been better, if the shutter was slowed down further below with a tripod mount? I am unhappy with the output!! Can you, pls. help me knowing whether the images were technically alright and if not, how to make them correct with camera settings without recoursing to post-processing?
Thnx and regards

[cauger61]

Dear William, I have posted to Manfred the same queries as here. I would love to hear from you as well, because you spent a good amount of time till I posted my last reply to this thread:

I would once again like to reinitiate this discussion further, though these shots do not pertain to indoor and there was no scope of using flash. I took those shots using 70-300 f/4.5-6.3 lens at 300mm on Nikon D5300 in the early hours of morning. May you pls. look into these images? My query is, don't you think that the photos appear soft and lacking contrast? Of course, it was a cloudy day with overcast sky. I tried with P, A and M modes, but all with the same results. Of course, I must mention that I forgot to use tripod. However, I set ISO as Auto with maxm at 3200 and minimum shutter at 1/60. Do they appear less sharp because of f/6.3 at 300mm? Could it have been better, if the shutter was slowed down further below with a tripod mount? I am unhappy with the output!! Can you, pls. help me knowing whether the images were technically alright and if not, how to make them correct with camera settings without recoursing to post-processing?

Thnx and regards

Sanjib

[Polar01]

Sanjib, this was a dull overcast day so the light would be soft, flat, and low in contract so that is what you got. First as to sharpness, I am going to guess at something, you have a 300mm lets say set for 280mm, cats are 7m distance with a 300mm @280mm with f/5.6 you have a total of about 120mm (5 inches) of depth of field. So it goes to knowing your lens and camera and what you can get. Suggest if possible you get a smartphone app, that gives you depth of field until you get a better understanding of it. I still use my app after all these years.
Now as to why they all look the same. It would not really matter as the light was all the same, which mode you use A, S, M, or P with auto ISO on the camera is always going to meter for 18 grey so all the same outcome of the images. There maybe a slight different but not much.
Hope that might be of some help

Cheers: Al

[cauger61]

OK!! so far; so good. Thnx; I will get back to disturb you further, after I download and use the DOP app on my smartphone.

[DanK]

Sanjib,

To expand a little on what Allan wrote: the P, Av, TV, and M modes don't directly change how an image appears. What matters is the aperture, shutter speed, and ISO. The modes are simply different ways of getting to reasonable aperture, shutter speed, and ISO settings.

There are two entirely separate issues here: lack of sharpness, and lack of contrast.

The lack of contrast is simply a result of the type of lighting. You could fix this in postprocessing with any number of tools, such as a curves tool in any software or the contrast slider in Lightroom. It has nothing to do with the other settings.

Re sharpness: if you blow up this picture, it's very soft, and the front-most kitten's eyes are clearly out of focus. One issue, as Allan wrote, is using a setting that will get you enough depth of field, which probably means closing down from the f/6.3 you used.

A second factor that can undermine sharpness is camera motion. 1/60 is very slow shutter speed for handholding with a 300mm lens on a DX camera. That lens has vibration reduction (VR), so you might have been OK with 1/60, but it depends on how steady you are.

[xpatUSA]

I have a question about "lack of contrast" with respect to available scene lighting. Assuming that an exposure results in an image with the same apparent contrast as was evident in the captured scene, is that contrast something that must always be "fixed"?

[Manfred M]

+1 to what Allan and Dan have written.

This looks like a camera movement issue, rather than a focus issue, as there is nothing in either image that is completely sharp.

This is a low contrast scene and the light you have here is great for images of animals as it really helps show of the detail in the fur. When I look at your histogram, you have a bit of room to adjust global contrast and you can certainly boost mid-tone contrast as well if this is what you are trying to get.

Allan and Dan have already covered off the camera movement issues. Understanding your hand-holding capabilities as well as the appropriate settings for aperture, shutter speed and ISO are all things you need to understand to be an effective photographer. I really have no idea why you would be shooting at such long focal lengths; get closer so you don't need them. Approaching a few kittens should not be a significant rist...

I've reworked you images in post and have added global and mid-tone contrast and run them through shake reduction software.

Your white balance is all over the map as well.

[Manfred M]

I have a question about "lack of contrast" with respect to available scene lighting. Assuming that an exposure results in an image with the same apparent contrast as was evident in the captured scene, is that contrast something that must always be "fixed"?

The general answer would be "yes" as most people seem to prefer images with more contrast. That being said, that argument does not hold for foggy conditions.

[cauger61]

Sanjib,

Re sharpness: which probably means closing down from the f/6.3 you used.

A second factor that can undermine sharpness is camera motion. 1/60 is very slow shutter speed for handholding with a 300mm lens on a DX camera. That lens has vibration reduction (VR), so you might have been OK with 1/60, but it depends on how steady you are.

Closing down from f/6.3; how much f/8 or f/11? secondly, if I increase the f-number and the same time go up with the shutter speed, don't I have to crank up the ISO above 3200? Can I take that risk or it is better to drag the shutter below 1/60 and use a tripod?