Flash Outside
 

For those interested.

Encouraged by the results I gained yesterday of Anne's image in the Gallery with the flash and Gold reflector on Anne, and flash on for the others.

A couple were done where the light did not do anything to help the subject. One was flash and Gold Reflector on Anne. Reflector was on her ear area only. The other two I just used the flash for taking normal images. My thought is the results of the water and vessels were shaper and more life like than if I did not use flash on those images.



I am thinking of keeping flash on at all times for a few more tests.

Norm D

Norm,

I do not know the setting you are using on your camera but I can assure you that unless use of the flash impacts on the shutter speed and aperture selection, then use flash will have no impact on these distant images. My Metz which is fairly powerful, with a guide no of 45, will reach 30 ft at f4 at ISO100.

Although your eye can see the light from even a small flash at quite a distance it is insufficient light to record on an image. The rule for flash is that as distance doubles light reflected from the subject falls to a quarter. ( Inverse square law ). You can see that for yourself if you do a night time test with the camera set in flash mode. Take a series of pics at 6ft, 12ft, 24ft and 48ft. By the time you reach 48ft almost no light will be recorded unless you have a powerful flashgun.

Don

Don

I have used the inverse square law in my film days as well. That was not lhat I was trying on this thread.

What it seemed to me was - for whatever the reason - and I cannot explain it - but my images I got at the pier with the light on yesterday - even if the flash did not actuallly hit anything - the exposure seemed snappier and slight sharper than if I turned it off.

It does not make sense to me, either, why that should be. When I used a magnifying glass on the cam's viewing screen in a dark area, I sensed the image with the light on was slightly snappier and a tad sharper generally than the one without the light - botlh were hand held as well. I did an image each way as well to see if I could tell a reason, but I could not tell why just using a magnifier.

I know full well how far my light goes - and it would not go much more distance than the one of Anne - expecially in the sun.

I am going to have to look into this further - because I feel it should not happen mysel as well, but, I felt it was so. I wonder if the cam's meter system thinks that with the flash on, it needs to give a certain shutter speed and f stop no matter the light level or distance to give a tad snappier exposure? The cam was set to ALL AUTOMATIC everything.

Many times I see people using these cams like my S600 with the light going - no matter what the distance and light level - and I wonder why they should be on, but..... I guess I will have to search out some answers.

When I worked up the images on here, I scrubbed the non flash images as I did not do anything to them on here. Next time I will keep both and study the idea further.

Norm D

I think you might be on the right track in how using the flash affects the program settings.

You will have to try a test with the same scene. One with your normal setting and another with the flash setting you used here.

Don

You are right, I am going to study this idea further. I reall do like the end results of my images yesterday.

It is wet today - I will see if I can do a couple of images (love the low light) or if I should wait until the light is brighter. But, I will give the test 'a go' as it were.

Norm D

Further too my thread

For those interested in the comparision of Flash vs No Flash Outside.

If one compares this image Bantry Harbour - no flash used - compared to the buildings in the background of the image of Anne, this Irish image is not as snappy - even wilth the same art program processing numbers on it - as Anne's. The light is hazy bright on both - although the Irish image may be a tad more hazy being near the water.

It is a personal preference, I guess.

Norm D