Comments on this strange flash shot – please

Al Dykes wrote:

Last night was my first use of a real flash on my dslr, a 420EX on a 300D. There’s lots to learn and I’m generally happy with the results but one of the shots came out *very* strange (and I think, funny.)
http://www.panix.com/~adykes/CRW_9997.jpg

I don’t think I could have done anything different in the camera. It’s shot in RAW and Photoshop tells me there *is* detail in the over-exposed part and this may me my first attempt to to mask out and develop the frame twice to make a decent shot.

Why did this one guy overexpose like that? Are *all* his clothes laundered in detergent that glowes in UV (even his hat?) Even his skin is overexposed if you compare it to people that are much closer to the flash.

I also want to make these shots more of an available light look, but that’s a seperate topic.

Comments ?

He’s in the center of the path of the flash. The bare skin of the few guys next to him are also blown out. It looks to me that you can use ISO1600 and thus reduce or eliminate the flash.

In article <YKLJe.2770$>,
l e o wrote:

Al Dykes wrote:

Last night was my first use of a real flash on my dslr, a 420EX on a 300D. There’s lots to learn and I’m generally happy with the results but one of the shots came out *very* strange (and I think, funny.)
http://www.panix.com/~adykes/CRW_9997.jpg

I don’t think I could have done anything different in the camera. It’s shot in RAW and Photoshop tells me there *is* detail in the over-exposed part and this may me my first attempt to to mask out and develop the frame twice to make a decent shot.

Why did this one guy overexpose like that? Are *all* his clothes laundered in detergent that glowes in UV (even his hat?) Even his skin is overexposed if you compare it to people that are much closer to the flash.

I also want to make these shots more of an available light look, but that’s a seperate topic.

Comments ?

He’s in the center of the path of the flash. The bare skin of the few guys next to him are also blown out. It looks to me that you can use ISO1600 and thus reduce or eliminate the flash.

Good call and that certainly has lots to do with it but the guy on the right, closest to me is *much* closer to the flash than the Man In White. That’s a long row of tables and a fair amount of foreshortening. The lens was set to maybe 90mm (not counting the 1.6 multiplication factor).

I wasn’t pushing the flash coverage angle so there wasn’t any light falloff.

—
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don’t blame me. I voted for Gore.

Al Dykes wrote:

In article <YKLJe.2770$>,
l e o wrote:

Al Dykes wrote:

Last night was my first use of a real flash on my dslr, a 420EX on a 300D. There’s lots to learn and I’m generally happy with the results but one of the shots came out *very* strange (and I think, funny.)
http://www.panix.com/~adykes/CRW_9997.jpg

I don’t think I could have done anything different in the camera. It’s shot in RAW and Photoshop tells me there *is* detail in the over-exposed part and this may me my first attempt to to mask out and develop the frame twice to make a decent shot.

Why did this one guy overexpose like that? Are *all* his clothes laundered in detergent that glowes in UV (even his hat?) Even his skin is overexposed if you compare it to people that are much closer to the flash.

I also want to make these shots more of an available light look, but that’s a seperate topic.

Comments ?

He’s in the center of the path of the flash. The bare skin of the few guys next to him are also blown out. It looks to me that you can use ISO1600 and thus reduce or eliminate the flash.

Good call and that certainly has lots to do with it but the guy on the right, closest to me is *much* closer to the flash than the Man In White. That’s a long row of tables and a fair amount of foreshortening. The lens was set to maybe 90mm (not counting the 1.6 multiplication factor).

I wasn’t pushing the flash coverage angle so there wasn’t any light falloff.

That’s what I said, they are all overblown as well. The closer to the center, the worse it’ll be. Reduce the flash and if you do need flash, then stand up and aim at the music players only.

Ghosts don’t photograph well 😉

"Al Dykes" a

Al Dykes wrote:

In article <YKLJe.2770$>,
l e o wrote:

Al Dykes wrote:

Last night was my first use of a real flash on my dslr, a 420EX on a 300D. There’s lots to learn and I’m generally happy with the results but one of the shots came out *very* strange (and I think, funny.)
http://www.panix.com/~adykes/CRW_9997.jpg

I don’t think I could have done anything different in the camera. It’s shot in RAW and Photoshop tells me there *is* detail in the over-exposed part and this may me my first attempt to to mask out and develop the frame twice to make a decent shot.

Why did this one guy overexpose like that? Are *all* his clothes laundered in detergent that glowes in UV (even his hat?) Even his skin is overexposed if you compare it to people that are much closer to the flash.

I also want to make these shots more of an available light look, but that’s a seperate topic.

Comments ?

He’s in the center of the path of the flash. The bare skin of the few guys next to him are also blown out. It looks to me that you can use ISO1600 and thus reduce or eliminate the flash.

Good call and that certainly has lots to do with it but the guy on the right, closest to me is *much* closer to the flash than the Man In White. That’s a long row of tables and a fair amount of foreshortening. The lens was set to maybe 90mm (not counting the 1.6 multiplication factor).

< I wasn’t pushing the flash coverage angle so there wasn’t any light > < falloff. >

This is what I see, so I think you can get by without flash, just use high ISO. The scene doesn’t look too dark, otherwise, considering the distance, I suspect you’d see some light fall off.

In article <oyNJe.3113$>,
l e o wrote:

Al Dykes wrote:

In article <YKLJe.2770$>,
l e o wrote:

Al Dykes wrote:

Last night was my first use of a real flash on my dslr, a 420EX on a 300D. There’s lots to learn and I’m generally happy with the results but one of the shots came out *very* strange (and I think, funny.)
http://www.panix.com/~adykes/CRW_9997.jpg

I don’t think I could have done anything different in the camera. It’s shot in RAW and Photoshop tells me there *is* detail in the over-exposed part and this may me my first attempt to to mask out and develop the frame twice to make a decent shot.

Why did this one guy overexpose like that? Are *all* his clothes laundered in detergent that glowes in UV (even his hat?) Even his skin is overexposed if you compare it to people that are much closer to the flash.

I also want to make these shots more of an available light look, but that’s a seperate topic.

Comments ?

He’s in the center of the path of the flash. The bare skin of the few guys next to him are also blown out. It looks to me that you can use ISO1600 and thus reduce or eliminate the flash.

Good call and that certainly has lots to do with it but the guy on the right, closest to me is *much* closer to the flash than the Man In White. That’s a long row of tables and a fair amount of foreshortening. The lens was set to maybe 90mm (not counting the 1.6 multiplication factor).

< I wasn’t pushing the flash coverage angle so there wasn’t any light > < falloff. >

This is what I see, so I think you can get by without flash, just use high ISO. The scene doesn’t look too dark, otherwise, considering the distance, I suspect you’d see some light fall off.

I’ve done lots of no-flash available light shooting in similar situations. I find I need to shoot a huge number of frames and then sort through them to get one in which both the artists and I hold still for a 30th of a second and the compostition is also good. The color is so far off that I can’t really correct for it, and then there is the noise. I’m looking for a "better" available light look with a higher percenatge of usable shots so I can focus on composition. The flash is new. I’ve hacked the dRebel software to get FEC capability but I have to work on the use.

My next purchase is a grey card so I can get a handle on the color correction for these strange stage lights.

No flash:

http://www.panix.com/~adykes/CRW_5029.jpg

http://www.panix.com/~adykes/CRW_8034.jpg

This is with the on-camera flash:

http://www.panix.com/~adykes/CRW_9508.jpg

More club shots with and without on-camera flash.

http://www.6gen.com/JUGS/

—
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don’t blame me. I voted for Gore.

In article <4uNJe.4415$>,
jean wrote:

Ghosts don’t photograph well 😉

"Al Dykes" a

In article <dd80g4$l2d$ says…

Last night was my first use of a real flash on my dslr, a 420EX on a 300D. There’s lots to learn and I’m generally happy with the results but one of the shots came out *very* strange (and I think, funny.)
http://www.panix.com/~adykes/CRW_9997.jpg

I don’t think I could have done anything different in the camera. It’s shot in RAW and Photoshop tells me there *is* detail in the over-exposed part and this may me my first attempt to to mask out and develop the frame twice to make a decent shot.

Why did this one guy overexpose like that? Are *all* his clothes laundered in detergent that glowes in UV (even his hat?) Even his skin is overexposed if you compare it to people that are much closer to the flash.

I also want to make these shots more of an available light look, but that’s a seperate topic.

Comments ?

Nothing strange here!

The fellow in the hat is completely "blown out" because he is catching the full power of the flash, the guys to his left and right catch a little less of it but they are also over-exposed..

The band seems to be pretty well exposed,,, your flash needed to be higher above the tables, I think.

—
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.

In article ,
Larry wrote:

In article <dd80g4$l2d$ says…

Last night was my first use of a real flash on my dslr, a 420EX on a 300D. There’s lots to learn and I’m generally happy with the results but one of the shots came out *very* strange (and I think, funny.)
http://www.panix.com/~adykes/CRW_9997.jpg

I don’t think I could have done anything different in the camera. It’s shot in RAW and Photoshop tells me there *is* detail in the over-exposed part and this may me my first attempt to to mask out and develop the frame twice to make a decent shot.

Why did this one guy overexpose like that? Are *all* his clothes laundered in detergent that glowes in UV (even his hat?) Even his skin is overexposed if you compare it to people that are much closer to the flash.

I also want to make these shots more of an available light look, but that’s a seperate topic.

Comments ?

Nothing strange here!

The fellow in the hat is completely "blown out" because he is catching the full power of the flash, the guys to his left and right catch a little less of it but they are also over-exposed..

The band seems to be pretty well exposed,,, your flash needed to be higher above the tables, I think.

I *was* standing up. The depth of the room isn’t apparent in the photo.

I was shooting manual with the "spot" meter and I think I put the spot on the girl singer and the camera and flash did what I asked it to 🙁 . Live and learn.

The vibes in the room didn’t let me get close and to the side which I generally do. I don’t have the confidence/obnoxiousness to get up close with a flash.

—
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don’t blame me. I voted for Gore.

"Al Dykes" wrote in message
….

I’ve done lots of no-flash available light shooting in similar situations. I find I need to shoot a huge number of frames and then sort through them to get one in which both the artists and I hold still for a 30th of a second and the compostition is also good. The color is so far off that I can’t really correct for it, and then there is the noise. I’m looking for a "better" available light look with a higher percenatge of usable shots so I can focus on composition. The flash is new. I’ve hacked the dRebel software to get FEC capability but I have to work on the use.

My next purchase is a grey card so I can get a handle on the color correction for these strange stage lights.

No flash:

http://www.panix.com/~adykes/CRW_5029.jpg
http://www.panix.com/~adykes/CRW_8034.jpg

This is with the on-camera flash:
http://www.panix.com/~adykes/CRW_9508.jpg

More club shots with and without on-camera flash.

http://www.6gen.com/JUGS/

The important tones are the flesh tones and it may be more important to get them on base before concerning yourself with anything else. You may use, for example, the Air America logo as a source of a neutral, as well as some of the clothing. I don’t think a gray card or color checker is not going to help significantly, in a mixed lighting situation like this one, with a red gel on some of the lights the card will either be orange or more or less pure red.

Interesting images, and I have some thoughts on how to improve them with curves. Before doing so, and with your permission I’d like to add a cropped version of one of them to my "Misfortunate Images" tutorial. http://www.curvemeister.com/tutorials/misfortunate/index.htm . Please let me know.

Mike

"Al Dykes" wrote in message

Last night was my first use of a real flash on my dslr, a 420EX on a 300D. There’s lots to learn and I’m generally happy with the results but one of the shots came out *very* strange (and I think, funny.)
http://www.panix.com/~adykes/CRW_9997.jpg

I have seen that happen before. I don’t know enough tech to explain it, though.

Is that the Starry Plough?

Greg

In article ,
G.T. wrote:

"Al Dykes" wrote in message

Last night was my first use of a real flash on my dslr, a 420EX on a 300D. There’s lots to learn and I’m generally happy with the results but one of the shots came out *very* strange (and I think, funny.)
http://www.panix.com/~adykes/CRW_9997.jpg

I have seen that happen before. I don’t know enough tech to explain it, though.

Is that the Starry Plough?

Nope. We’re in NYC. http://www.amroadhouse.com/

It very late in the evening of a political fundrasier. I’ve got better pics (thank g*d.)

—
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don’t blame me. I voted for Gore.

In article <dd80g4$l2d$ says…

Last night was my first use of a real flash on my dslr, a 420EX on a 300D. There’s lots to learn and I’m generally happy with the results but one of the shots came out *very* strange (and I think, funny.)
http://www.panix.com/~adykes/CRW_9997.jpg

I don’t think I could have done anything different in the camera. It’s shot in RAW and Photoshop tells me there *is* detail in the over-exposed part and this may me my first attempt to to mask out and develop the frame twice to make a decent shot.

Why did this one guy overexpose like that? Are *all* his clothes laundered in detergent that glowes in UV (even his hat?) Even his skin is overexposed if you compare it to people that are much closer to the flash.

I also want to make these shots more of an available light look, but that’s a seperate topic.

Comments ?

Al,

I won’t hold your voting record against you! :-}

I’ve looked over your shot, and the replies in the thread, including your followups. You state that you had set the flash to "not push the flash coverage… " and that makes me wonder. I don’t know your gear, but for the flash to isolate a subject in the center, and farther from the camera, than others to this extent, it almost appears that he received an inordanant amount of light – like 2-3 /f’s. Could it be that instead of widening out the flash coverage, you made it much more narrow? In the "old days," of Vivitar 283/285 ‘s, etc. you manually moved the frensel/diffusor back and forth to allow for the coverage of the lens. Looking at the rest of the image, there are some hot highlights, but nothing like the man in the hat. Most of the rest could well be a product of just a major compression to get the image on the Web. All of the rest, looks like it could be salvaged in PS.

As to your question regarding the UV, it is possible, and to obtain a light shade in a Panama, there are brighteners used. However, that alone, would not account for his skin, unless, as mentioned, there is something supernatural happening – Indian burial ground beneath the inn?

Just some rambling thoughts, and glad you did get some better pics. BTW, did the hat dude glow white in any other shots?

Hunt

In article wrote:

In article <dd80g4$l2d$ says…

Last night was my first use of a real flash on my dslr, a 420EX on a 300D. There’s lots to learn and I’m generally happy with the results but one of the shots came out *very* strange (and I think, funny.)
http://www.panix.com/~adykes/CRW_9997.jpg

I don’t think I could have done anything different in the camera. It’s shot in RAW and Photoshop tells me there *is* detail in the over-exposed part and this may me my first attempt to to mask out and develop the frame twice to make a decent shot.

Why did this one guy overexpose like that? Are *all* his clothes laundered in detergent that glowes in UV (even his hat?) Even his skin is overexposed if you compare it to people that are much closer to the flash.

I also want to make these shots more of an available light look, but that’s a seperate topic.

Comments ?

Al,

I won’t hold your voting record against you! :-}

I’ve looked over your shot, and the replies in the thread, including your followups. You state that you had set the flash to "not push the flash coverage… " and that makes me wonder. I don’t know your gear, but for the

The flash is a Canon 420EX on a 300D and the flash knows what focal length the zoom lens is set to and since the dslr has a 1.6 multiplication factor and the flash assumes a full frame that’s a safety factor.

flash to isolate a subject in the center, and farther from the camera, than others to this extent, it almost appears that he received an inordanant amount of light – like 2-3 /f’s. Could it be that instead of widening out the flash coverage, you made it much more narrow? In the "old days," of Vivitar 283/285

It’s automatic. I can see the flash bulb move when I zoom the lens.

‘s, etc. you manually moved the frensel/diffusor back and forth to allow for the coverage of the lens. Looking at the rest of the image, there are some hot highlights, but nothing like the man in the hat. Most of the rest could well be a product of just a major compression to get the image on the Web. All of the rest, looks like it could be salvaged in PS.

As to your question regarding the UV, it is possible, and to obtain a light shade in a Panama, there are brighteners used. However, that alone, would not account for his skin, unless, as mentioned, there is something supernatural happening – Indian burial ground beneath the inn?

Just some rambling thoughts, and glad you did get some better pics. BTW, did the hat dude glow white in any other shots?

Hunt

Yup. He made a couple other appearances and he was always glowing.

I’ve occasionally been in a club with lots of black light and found a zillion specs of whitener on my shirt glowing from my laundry detergent. On a dark shirt it’s embarrassing. Since this was my first use of a modern flash I thought UV was a possibility, but not on the skin.

Thanks for all the responses.

—
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don’t blame me. I voted for Gore.

On 8 Aug 2005 15:11:59 -0400, in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (Al Dykes) wrote:

I *was* standing up. The depth of the room isn’t apparent in the photo.

I was shooting manual with the "spot" meter and I think I put the spot on the girl singer and the camera and flash did what I asked it to 🙁 . Live and learn.

The vibes in the room didn’t let me get close and to the side which I generally do. I don’t have the confidence/obnoxiousness to get up close with a flash.

Is it just me? The focus appears to be on the guy over on the left in the red and white checked shirt. The bad is not in focus at all. ———-
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 ()
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html

Ed Ruf wrote:

On 8 Aug 2005 15:11:59 -0400, in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (Al Dykes) wrote:

I *was* standing up. The depth of the room isn’t apparent in the photo.

I was shooting manual with the "spot" meter and I think I put the spot on the girl singer and the camera and flash did what I asked it to 🙁 . Live and learn.

The vibes in the room didn’t let me get close and to the side which I generally do. I don’t have the confidence/obnoxiousness to get up close with a flash.

Is it just me? The focus appears to be on the guy over on the left in the red and white checked shirt. The bad is not in focus at all. ———-
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 ()
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html

You’re right. The band is not in focus. Perhaps we pointed the camera at the head of the man who is left (right on the pic) of the way overblown man. Also, the lighting is so even that it clearly shows that the scene isn’t illuminated by flash alone. Maybe the camera’s ISO setting was set to high already.

He’s a ghost.

— Martin

"Al Dykes" wrote in message

Last night was my first use of a real flash on my dslr, a 420EX on a 300D. There’s lots to learn and I’m generally happy with the results but one of the shots came out *very* strange (and I think, funny.)
http://www.panix.com/~adykes/CRW_9997.jpg

I don’t think I could have done anything different in the camera. It’s shot in RAW and Photoshop tells me there *is* detail in the over-exposed part and this may me my first attempt to to mask out and develop the frame twice to make a decent shot.

Why did this one guy overexpose like that? Are *all* his clothes laundered in detergent that glowes in UV (even his hat?) Even his skin is overexposed if you compare it to people that are much closer to the flash.

I also want to make these shots more of an available light look, but that’s a seperate topic.

Comments ?

—
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don’t blame me. I voted for Gore.

In article <IWOJe.2666$>,
Mike Russell wrote:

"Al Dykes" wrote in message
…

I’ve done lots of no-flash available light shooting in similar situations. I find I need to shoot a huge number of frames and then sort through them to get one in which both the artists and I hold still for a 30th of a second and the compostition is also good. The color is so far off that I can’t really correct for it, and then there is the noise. I’m looking for a "better" available light look with a higher percenatge of usable shots so I can focus on composition. The flash is new. I’ve hacked the dRebel software to get FEC capability but I have to work on the use.

My next purchase is a grey card so I can get a handle on the color correction for these strange stage lights.

No flash:

http://www.panix.com/~adykes/CRW_5029.jpg
http://www.panix.com/~adykes/CRW_8034.jpg

This is with the on-camera flash:
http://www.panix.com/~adykes/CRW_9508.jpg

More club shots with and without on-camera flash.

http://www.6gen.com/JUGS/

The important tones are the flesh tones and it may be more important to get them on base before concerning yourself with anything else. You may use, for example, the Air America logo as a source of a neutral, as well as some of the clothing. I don’t think a gray card or color checker is not going to help significantly, in a mixed lighting situation like this one, with a red gel on some of the lights the card will either be orange or more or less pure red.

Interesting images, and I have some thoughts on how to improve them with curves. Before doing so, and with your permission I’d like to add a cropped version of one of them to my "Misfortunate Images" tutorial. http://www.curvemeister.com/tutorials/misfortunate/index.htm . Please let me know.

Mike

I’ve responded to the edited form of this address I haven’t heard back yet.

Which frames ? DO you want the original RAW images? I’d like to see what you say about them.

You can email me at the address in my sig.

—
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don’t blame me. I voted for Gore.

In article <U21Ke.3361$>,
l e o wrote:

Ed Ruf wrote:

On 8 Aug 2005 15:11:59 -0400, in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (Al Dykes) wrote:

I *was* standing up. The depth of the room isn’t apparent in the photo.

I was shooting manual with the "spot" meter and I think I put the spot on the girl singer and the camera and flash did what I asked it to 🙁 . Live and learn.

The vibes in the room didn’t let me get close and to the side which I generally do. I don’t have the confidence/obnoxiousness to get up close with a flash.

Is it just me? The focus appears to be on the guy over on the left in the red and white checked shirt. The bad is not in focus at all. ———-
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 ()
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html

You’re right. The band is not in focus. Perhaps we pointed the camera at the head of the man who is left (right on the pic) of the way overblown man. Also, the lighting is so even that it clearly shows that the scene isn’t illuminated by flash alone. Maybe the camera’s ISO setting was set to high already.

Yup. I just looked at the original frame, blown up. It seems camera focused on the Man In White.

—
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don’t blame me. I voted for Gore.

"Al Dykes" wrote in message

Last night was my first use of a real flash on my dslr, a 420EX on a 300D. There’s lots to learn and I’m generally happy with the results but one of the shots came out *very* strange (and I think, funny.)
http://www.panix.com/~adykes/CRW_9997.jpg

I don’t think I could have done anything different in the camera. It’s shot in RAW and Photoshop tells me there *is* detail in the over-exposed part and this may me my first attempt to to mask out and develop the frame twice to make a decent shot.

Why did this one guy overexpose like that? Are *all* his clothes laundered in detergent that glowes in UV (even his hat?) Even his skin is overexposed if you compare it to people that are much closer to the flash.

I also want to make these shots more of an available light look, but that’s a seperate topic.

Comments ?

—
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don’t blame me. I voted for Gore.

I see nothing funny or strange
I see an out of focus
overlit snapshot,
that does not capture a feeling
3 strikes throw it out!

In article <qR7Ke.6783$>,
KatWoman wrote:

"Al Dykes" wrote in message

Last night was my first use of a real flash on my dslr, a 420EX on a 300D. There’s lots to learn and I’m generally happy with the results but one of the shots came out *very* strange (and I think, funny.)
http://www.panix.com/~adykes/CRW_9997.jpg

I don’t think I could have done anything different in the camera. It’s shot in RAW and Photoshop tells me there *is* detail in the over-exposed part and this may me my first attempt to to mask out and develop the frame twice to make a decent shot.

Why did this one guy overexpose like that? Are *all* his clothes laundered in detergent that glowes in UV (even his hat?) Even his skin is overexposed if you compare it to people that are much closer to the flash.

I also want to make these shots more of an available light look, but that’s a seperate topic.

Comments ?

—
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don’t blame me. I voted for Gore.

I see nothing funny or strange
I see an out of focus
overlit snapshot,
that does not capture a feeling
3 strikes throw it out!

Agreed. I was just looking for feedback of the first use of a new flashgun and I find the Man In White funny. Other than that it’s not a keeper.

—
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don’t blame me. I voted for Gore.

Al Dykes wrote:

In article <U21Ke.3361$>,
l e o wrote:

Ed Ruf wrote:

On 8 Aug 2005 15:11:59 -0400, in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (Al Dykes) wrote:

I *was* standing up. The depth of the room isn’t apparent in the photo.

I was shooting manual with the "spot" meter and I think I put the spot on the girl singer and the camera and flash did what I asked it to 🙁 . Live and learn.

The vibes in the room didn’t let me get close and to the side which I generally do. I don’t have the confidence/obnoxiousness to get up close with a flash.

Is it just me? The focus appears to be on the guy over on the left in the red and white checked shirt. The bad is not in focus at all. ———-
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 ()
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html

You’re right. The band is not in focus. Perhaps we pointed the camera at the head of the man who is left (right on the pic) of the way overblown man. Also, the lighting is so even that it clearly shows that the scene isn’t illuminated by flash alone. Maybe the camera’s ISO setting was set to high already.

Yup. I just looked at the original frame, blown up. It seems camera focused on the Man In White.

It cannot be the man in white. Otherwise, the flash would be much weaker to compensate for it. You must have pointed it at something dark, during the time of firing the shutter (NOT the time when you focus – half press the shutter) – taking the picture.

l e o wrote:

Al Dykes wrote:

In article <U21Ke.3361$>,
l e o wrote:

Ed Ruf wrote:

On 8 Aug 2005 15:11:59 -0400, in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (Al Dykes) wrote:

I *was* standing up. The depth of the room isn’t apparent in the photo.

I was shooting manual with the "spot" meter and I think I put the spot on the girl singer and the camera and flash did what I asked it to 🙁 . Live and learn.

The vibes in the room didn’t let me get close and to the side which I generally do. I don’t have the confidence/obnoxiousness to get up close with a flash.

Is it just me? The focus appears to be on the guy over on the left in the red and white checked shirt. The bad is not in focus at all. ———-
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 ()
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html

You’re right. The band is not in focus. Perhaps we pointed the camera at the head of the man who is left (right on the pic) of the way overblown man. Also, the lighting is so even that it clearly shows that the scene isn’t illuminated by flash alone. Maybe the camera’s ISO setting was set to high already.

Yup. I just looked at the original frame, blown up. It seems camera focused on the Man In White.

It cannot be the man in white. Otherwise, the flash would be much weaker to compensate for it. You must have pointed it at something dark, during the time of firing the shutter (NOT the time when you focus – half press the shutter) – taking the picture.

I have also noticed some of my flash shots the subjects get blown out. I am using a 550EX flash. It came with a light defuser. I have been thinking of trying that with the flash to see if it helps the flash shots.

Someone mentioned in one of the photo groups, or a digital photo class I took, or something I picked up and read about digital photography (I am just not sure where I read this) that the digital media is closer to slide film medium then negative film medium for exposure latitude.

So when using a flash you might want to keep that in mind. It has helped a few photos for me.

roland

On 8 Aug 2005 23:13:04 -0400, (Al Dykes) wrote:

Yup. He made a couple other appearances and he was always glowing.
I’ve occasionally been in a club with lots of black light and found a zillion specs of whitener on my shirt glowing from my laundry detergent. On a dark shirt it’s embarrassing. Since this was my first use of a modern flash I thought UV was a possibility, but not on the skin.

Al, one more thing – it could actually be the optical brighteners from the laundry detergent. If the shirt wasn’t rinsed thoroughly enough, you could get transfer from the shirt to the skin.

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

in article , Hecate at
wrote on 08/09/2005 2:46 PM:

Al, one more thing – it could actually be the optical brighteners from the laundry detergent. If the shirt wasn’t rinsed thoroughly enough, you could get transfer from the shirt to the skin.

Yeah, sure.

On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 15:18:57 -0700, Larry Linson
wrote:

in article , Hecate at
wrote on 08/09/2005 2:46 PM:

Al, one more thing – it could actually be the optical brighteners from the laundry detergent. If the shirt wasn’t rinsed thoroughly enough, you could get transfer from the shirt to the skin.

Yeah, sure.

Transfer from fibres to skin happens all the time, as does transfer from chemical components to skin. It’s why some people can’t use "biological" wash powders – even the most thorough rinse won’t get rid of all the powder. If you don’t understand transfer I suggest you find a book on forensic science.

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

in article , Hecate at
wrote on 08/10/2005 3:18 PM:

I suggest you
find a book on forensic science.

None of that will explain why that photo was the way it was.