Comments on this strange flash shot - please

In article ,
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 et,
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_Photog...ral/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 et,
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_Photog...ral/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.