Shadows? ? ?

My first digital camera was a medium range Kodak, but I found that the
biggest problem was that when the flash was used, there was always a very
pronounced shadow against the wall. It was like a silhouette.

My next was a Canon PowerShot which did not have this problem.

My Canon is now broken, and I want to make sure I don't get the shadow
problem again when I get a new one. I guess the best bet is to stay with
Canon.

Why would one brand have this problem and another not?

"Ray" wrote in message
news:Ixeii.6974$bh5.3377@trndny01...
My first digital camera was a medium range Kodak, but I found that the
biggest problem was that when the flash was used, there was always a very
pronounced shadow against the wall. It was like a silhouette.

My next was a Canon PowerShot which did not have this problem.

My Canon is now broken, and I want to make sure I don't get the shadow
problem again when I get a new one. I guess the best bet is to stay with
Canon.

Why would one brand have this problem and another not?

The built-in flash on any camera has this problem.

On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 18:16:35 -0400, Charles wrote:
"Ray" wrote in message
news:Ixeii.6974$bh5.3377@trndny01...
My first digital camera was a medium range Kodak, but I found that the
biggest problem was that when the flash was used, there was always a very
pronounced shadow against the wall. It was like a silhouette.

My next was a Canon PowerShot which did not have this problem.

My Canon is now broken, and I want to make sure I don't get the shadow
problem again when I get a new one. I guess the best bet is to stay with
Canon.

Why would one brand have this problem and another not?

The built-in flash on any camera has this problem.

Well, "this problem" is more pronounced when the flash is to the left
of, or right of the lens -- or, god forbid, below the lens.

For the dinky, on-camera mounted flashes, the best location would be
directly above the lens. Alas, it probably takes too much design and
engineering effort to place it there for some manufacturers.

Jonesy
--
Marvin L Jones | jonz | W3DHJ | linux
38.24N 104.55W | @ config.com | Jonesy | OS/2
*** Killfiling google posts: http://jonz.net/ng.htm

But why would the Kodak have the problem and the Canon not have it?


"Charles" wrote in message
. ..

"Ray" wrote in message
news:Ixeii.6974$bh5.3377@trndny01...
My first digital camera was a medium range Kodak, but I found that the
biggest problem was that when the flash was used, there was always a very
pronounced shadow against the wall. It was like a silhouette.

My next was a Canon PowerShot which did not have this problem.

My Canon is now broken, and I want to make sure I don't get the shadow
problem again when I get a new one. I guess the best bet is to stay with
Canon.

Why would one brand have this problem and another not?

The built-in flash on any camera has this problem.

"Ray" wrote in message
news:P4gii.3568$105.335@trndny08...
But why would the Kodak have the problem and the Canon not have it?

Check again ... they all have it.

Subject(s) up against a wall is/are a tough situation for direct flash ...
it's even dicey for bounce flash. I have tried bounce, diffusers and so on
and now simply (when feasible) get my subject(s) away from the wall!

I am not talking about multiple flashes here, by the way, as that is a
different arena. Also, I am not talking about umbrella flashes and that
sort of thing. In other words, there are solutions, but they are off-thread
as to this discussion. However, you can pursue shadow elimination in flash
photography ... an interesting topic to explore.

In article P4gii.3568$105.335@trndny08,
"Ray" wrote:

But why would the Kodak have the problem and the Canon not have it?



I suspect, although I'm not positive, that the Canon probably had a
built-in flash that's closer to the lens axis than the Kodak, making the
shadows more noticeable on the latter.

A camera with the flash directly above and fairly close to the lens
might give you decent results (the Minolta Z series were like this, but
they're no longer manufactured, I don't think) but you're always going
to get some shadowing if you're getting most of your illumination from
the built-in flash and the subject is close to a wall or other surface.

-Kadin.

"Kadin2048" wrote in message
...
In article P4gii.3568$105.335@trndny08,
"Ray" wrote:

But why would the Kodak have the problem and the Canon not have it?



I suspect, although I'm not positive, that the Canon probably had a
built-in flash that's closer to the lens axis than the Kodak, making the
shadows more noticeable on the latter.

A camera with the flash directly above and fairly close to the lens
might give you decent results (the Minolta Z series were like this, but
they're no longer manufactured, I don't think) but you're always going
to get some shadowing if you're getting most of your illumination from
the built-in flash and the subject is close to a wall or other surface.

-Kadin.

Using a Camera with the Flash close to the Lens, will reduce the size of the
shadow, but guess what will happen to Red Eye.

I think I would rather have a shadow.

The real answer is to use an external Diffused Flash on an adjustable
bracket, so the the Flash is always directly above the lens. Or to put a
wireless slave off to the side where the shadow would be.

What!
You can't do that with a P & S, so get a real Camera.

Roy G

On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 21:58:00 GMT, "Ray"
wrote:

My first digital camera was a medium range Kodak, but I found that the
biggest problem was that when the flash was used, there was always a very
pronounced shadow against the wall. It was like a silhouette.

My next was a Canon PowerShot which did not have this problem.

My Canon is now broken, and I want to make sure I don't get the shadow
problem again when I get a new one. I guess the best bet is to stay with
Canon.

Why would one brand have this problem and another not?

Something I don't see others mentioning is the possibility of the
Canon having a diffusor on the flash, while the Kodak didn't.
The diffusor will help lesson the harsh edges of that shadow.

--
THIS IS A SIG LINE; NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY!

Barack Obama on Sunday reported his campaign
raised thirty-two million dollars in the second
quarter. He beat Hillary Clinton by ten million
dollars. His donations come from Democrats who
are exhausted by the whole Clinton psychodrama,
while her donations come from comedians who only
want to work half-days for the next eight years.

Light is light.

The further the flash is away from the lens, the bigger the silhouette. If
the flash is above the lens, then the silhouette will usually not be as
noticeable. Also, the closer the person is to the wall behind, the more
pronounced the silhouette is.


"Ray" wrote in message
news:Ixeii.6974$bh5.3377@trndny01...
My first digital camera was a medium range Kodak, but I found that the
biggest problem was that when the flash was used, there was always a very
pronounced shadow against the wall. It was like a silhouette.

My next was a Canon PowerShot which did not have this problem.

My Canon is now broken, and I want to make sure I don't get the shadow
problem again when I get a new one. I guess the best bet is to stay with
Canon.

Why would one brand have this problem and another not?

You're right, the Canon's flash is closer to the lens.


"Kadin2048" wrote in message
...
In article P4gii.3568$105.335@trndny08,
"Ray" wrote:

But why would the Kodak have the problem and the Canon not have it?



I suspect, although I'm not positive, that the Canon probably had a
built-in flash that's closer to the lens axis than the Kodak, making the
shadows more noticeable on the latter.

A camera with the flash directly above and fairly close to the lens
might give you decent results (the Minolta Z series were like this, but
they're no longer manufactured, I don't think) but you're always going
to get some shadowing if you're getting most of your illumination from
the built-in flash and the subject is close to a wall or other surface.

-Kadin.