Speaking of learning flash photography...

[C_Dave45]

I can't figure out exactly what the problem is here. All taken on a tripod with a remote switch. Flash on. Couple on auto, couple on manual. played with aperture. auto focus. And everyone looks like absolute garbage. (Didn't do any PP, just converted from CR2)

[The_Penguin]

What flash?
If built-in, forget that you even have one, and get a bounceable Speedlight.
Forget the Canon (it's great but really expensive) The Yongnuo units for $230ish from Strobepro are just as good IMHO.

You probably want to be in manual mode.
With flash as fill shots, expose for the brightest part of the scene (windows probably) and let the flash fill in the shadows. Bouncing it off of the ceiling works best usually.

[C_Dave45]

Originally posted by The_Penguin
What flash?
If built-in, forget that you even have one, and get a bounceable Speedlight.
Forget the Canon (it's great but really expensive) The Yongnuo units for $230ish from Strobepro are just as good IMHO.

You probably want to be in manual mode.
With flash as fill shots, expose for the brightest part of the scene (windows probably) and let the flash fill in the shadows. Bouncing it off of the ceiling works best usually.

Canon EX430.

Yeah, I know a little about flash. I regularly "bounce" and direct my flash, and also use the 430 as a "slave", off camera, etc etc.

That particular room has 14 foot ceilings. I was more just seeing what the camera would do for itself.
What I don't understand is what exactly the problem is in those shots. I can't see anywhere that's in focus. Soft everywhere. So why isn't the camera locking on at least something?

I just wanted a plain jane "snapshot" with generally everything in focus. Obviously in "auto" mode, the camera goes to 1/60 @ F4 which is no good. I went to manual at 1/125 @ F6.3 with a "fill", but it still looks like crap.

[C_Dave45]

Here's a shot I did manual and a bit of PP and things seem not too bad. Fairly in-focus. I exposed for the outside and filled inside with the flash. Even the carpet you can see some detail. But the plug outlet is not clear. Should I have used F11?

[The_Penguin]

Yeah 14 foot ceilings will limit the flash output of a bounced 430 a bit.


Holy shit that's a nice view!
Pretty tough scene if you want everything in focus. I don't think F11 wold have made a huge difference. What did you focus on? The background is pretty sharp considering how far away it is
I'd have focused on a spot a few feet in front of the window, and settled for a slightly out of focus background. Or on a tripod, taken 2 shots one focused on the background, and one on the carpet, and combined in post.

[Wakalimasu]

yah just combine in post with several shots at difference focus points

[blitz]

Did you adjust the flash output at all? Either manual power control or upping flash compensation.

If you're using a tripod, make sure you're camera is totally level in all directions so the vertical lines are actually vertical. Raise or lower the physical position of the camera to compose your photo.

F11 never hurts, don't go above that unless you have a specific need to.

The first 3 photos you posted probably don't need a flash, they just need a longer exposure and some positive exposure compensation as they seem too dark.

The 4th one needs either a flash to light up the inside walls or 2 different exposures blended (one or inside one for outside). Looks like you've used a graduated filters in Lightroom to darken the outside exposure, you'd be better off using either a straight up adjustment brush or using a graduated filter then deleting the effect on the walls with the new brush feature within the graduated tool.

[Maxx Mazda]

Is that out the window pic taken just above the bearspaw tree farm? Looks super familiar. I used to live there!

[D'z Nutz]

Originally posted by blitz
The first 3 photos you posted probably don't need a flash, they just need a longer exposure and some positive exposure compensation as they seem too dark.

Yeah, that's what I thought too.

Sometimes it's not necessary to use flash just for the sake of using flash and in some cases it might actually hurt the photo. In the case of your first set of photos, the shadow produced by the left wall and the dresser in the centre are very unflattering as well as the reflected light off the tub. In fact, the reflected light from the tub makes the foreground look brighter than the rest of the bathroom.

For those photos, I would have just used a tripod and done a longer exposure.

[Mitsu3000gt]

First things first, you need to make sure your camera is perfectly level and perfectly perpendicular to the walls. You can get little bubble levels that sit in your hot-shoe if your camera doesn't have a built in multi-axis level. That will keep your wall lines straight aside from any lens distortion, which you can correct in photoshop. You can correct perspective distortion to some degree in PS as well.

Your closet shots are probably going to look a lot better without flash, on a tripod, and either a long exposure or a HDR.

The other thing that's happening is everything is white, so your camera meter is going to be overwhelmed and underexpose everything like it appears to have done. When shooting that much white, almost always you need to add in some positive EV compensation in camera or in post. Shooting at the lowest native ISO possible will give you the most leeway later on in post.

Your window shot is a classic example of where a tasteful HDR would be useful, or some exposure blending, since you're trying to capture the bright windows and darker carpet in one shot. Either way I would have probably bracketed that shot by 3-5 frames so I could have more options later on. If you want to use flashes for interior work, usually you need several of them and various light modifiers on top of that. It's much easier just to use long exposures and/or HDRs in most cases.

Stopping down too much starts to hinder sharpness once diffraction starts to become noticeable, and by around F11-F13 is becomes pretty obvious. Most interior/real estate shots like this will never be viewed larger than a small web image though, so I wouldn't get too hung up on everything in the image being super sharp unless you have another intended usage for it.

I am not sure why your camera isn't locking focus on anything, but it does need contrast to focus, so if you were trying to focus on a featureless part of the white wall treatments or cabinetry for example, your camera isn't going to be able to focus at all. Try using a drawer handle or a shelving intersection if you need something to lock initial focus on, or manually focusing.

[C_Dave45]

Originally posted by Mitsu3000gt
First things first, you need to make sure your camera is perfectly level and perfectly perpendicular to the walls. You can get little bubble levels that sit in your hot-shoe if your camera doesn't have a built in multi-axis level. That will keep your wall lines straight aside from any lens distortion, which you can correct in photoshop. You can correct perspective distortion to some degree in PS as well.

Your closet shots are probably going to look a lot better without flash, on a tripod, and either a long exposure or a HDR.

The other thing that's happening is everything is white, so your camera meter is going to be overwhelmed and underexpose everything like it appears to have done. When shooting that much white, almost always you need to add in some positive EV compensation in camera or in post. Shooting at the lowest native ISO possible will give you the most leeway later on in post.

Your window shot is a classic example of where a tasteful HDR would be useful, or some exposure blending, since you're trying to capture the bright windows and darker carpet in one shot. Either way I would have probably bracketed that shot by 3-5 frames so I could have more options later on. If you want to use flashes for interior work, usually you need several of them and various light modifiers on top of that. It's much easier just to use long exposures and/or HDRs in most cases.

Stopping down too much starts to hinder sharpness once diffraction starts to become noticeable, and by around F11-F13 is becomes pretty obvious. Most interior/real estate shots like this will never be viewed larger than a small web image though, so I wouldn't get too hung up on everything in the image being super sharp unless you have another intended usage for it.

I am not sure why your camera isn't locking focus on anything, but it does need contrast to focus, so if you were trying to focus on a featureless part of the white wall treatments or cabinetry for example, your camera isn't going to be able to focus at all. Try using a drawer handle or a shelving intersection if you need something to lock initial focus on, or manually focusing.

Sorry Mark, I forgot to get back to this. I found this post extremely helpful. Thank you.

On a sidenote; I was thinking about what you were saying about people who buy expensive setups hoping they'll get great photos. I'm spending so much time working with my limited gear when I take shots at a hockey game. I take maybe 3 or 400 frames and get maybe 30 or 40, what I call, good shots. (even though I'd like better). But then I see a certain person, who shoots with $15,000 on top of a monopod, and takes 500+ frames from the most primo spot in the arena, sprays and prays...and just throws every single frame up on his webpage, without editing a single one.
I spend probably two to three hours after every game going over mine before publishing any of them.

[Xtrema]

Originally posted by C_Dave45
On a sidenote; I was thinking about what you were saying about people who buy expensive setups hoping they'll get great photos. I'm spending so much time working with my limited gear when I take shots at a hockey game. I take maybe 3 or 400 frames and get maybe 30 or 40, what I call, good shots. (even though I'd like better). But then I see a certain person, who shoots with $15,000 on top of a monopod, and takes 500+ frames from the most primo spot in the arena, sprays and prays...and just throws every single frame up on his webpage, without editing a single one.
I spend probably two to three hours after every game going over mine before publishing any of them.

Sport photography needs a lot of investment. That's why you see pros with lenses that looks more like a RPG.

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by C_Dave45

Sorry Mark, I forgot to get back to this. I found this post extremely helpful. Thank you.

On a sidenote; I was thinking about what you were saying about people who buy expensive setups hoping they'll get great photos. I'm spending so much time working with my limited gear when I take shots at a hockey game. I take maybe 3 or 400 frames and get maybe 30 or 40, what I call, good shots. (even though I'd like better). But then I see a certain person, who shoots with $15,000 on top of a monopod, and takes 500+ frames from the most primo spot in the arena, sprays and prays...and just throws every single frame up on his webpage, without editing a single one.
I spend probably two to three hours after every game going over mine before publishing any of them.

No problem.

To your second point, sometimes they even have a second team editing off site as the images arrive via WiFi transmitter. It's not unusual for a pro sports photographer to not even edit his own images haha.