Comments on this strange flash shot - please

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.

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 . net,
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 . net,
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 écrit dans le message de
...

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.

Al Dykes wrote:
In article . net,
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 et,
l e o wrote:
Al Dykes wrote:
In article . net,
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 ,
jean wrote:
Ghosts don't photograph well ;-)


"Al Dykes" a écrit dans le message de
...

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


That was my thought, too. Luckly I knew he was there and going to be a
problem becuase I was looking at the histogram in the LCD on the
camera. Other than that I'd start believeing in ghosts.



--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.

In article , 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 , 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.