# Most common PP for portraits?



## stsinner (Dec 4, 2008)

I'm trying to get better at taking portraits, and from what I'm reading just about all of the seasoned people on here seem to do some sort of PP to every single shot.  

What is some good advice for make portraits look good?  I've read some multi-step guides to taking good portraits, but it talked mostly about position of the subject, background, etc..  Is there one or two or more techniques that every good photographer knows about that is done in post to portraits to make them studio quality, or is that just the multi-thousand dollar camera the studios use?

I bought Portrait Professional, but it just made my kids look like Barbie Dolls.  I used umbrella flashes, but it washed out the color.  

Thanks for the info.


----------



## ANDS! (Dec 4, 2008)

Flashes shouldn't wash out color.  Saturation can be added in post.

I would imagine someones post depends on what results they want.  Are you asking what kind of retouching people do, or what kind of artistic effects (like blurring, edge softening) they use?


----------



## stsinner (Dec 4, 2008)

ANDS! said:


> Flashes shouldn't wash out color.  Saturation can be added in post.
> 
> I would imagine someones post depends on what results they want.  Are you asking what kind of retouching people do, or what kind of artistic effects (like blurring, edge softening) they use?



Well, I look at the portraits that are on my walls, and they just look so good.  I thought they were just taking the picture, but reading in here, it seems post work is almost always done with people shots-weddings, portraits, etc..  I thought taking a good picture was just a matter of knowing what settings to set on your camera, but post work is turning out to be much more prevalent than I expected.  I just wondered if there are certain filters or actions that everyone knows can take a portrait from okay to wow..  I guess I really don't know how to ask the question, so I hope someone can translate my thoughts..  

Looking at my portrait shots, I think I had a white balance issue, as well in my latest bunch, but the color just looks so blah..







In this picture, the flashes hadn't charged up yet when I shot, resulting a more underexposed picture where the colors weren't so washed out:








I'm admittedly very new to Manual, and I know these pictures are terrible, but I usually shoot in one of the program modes-either Shutter or Aperture priority, but usually AUTO.  Manual is the only way I can get my remote flash to fire at the right time, but the rest of the settings are not cooperating.

Thanks for the help.


----------



## Big Mike (Dec 4, 2008)

Good portraits (or just about any photography) is all about light.  If you can use the light effectively, you can go a long way.  Post processing can help but probably can't save a shot from poor lighting.  

It appears that you are having white balance and exposure issues.  Work on that before getting on to PP.


----------



## tsaraleksi (Dec 4, 2008)

It's good your staying with manual, remote flashes really do not work in any other mode. The big thing to understand here is that your shutter speed matters very little for strobe/flash photography. As long as it's not slow enough that ambient light can enter the image and blur, and not so fast as to exceed your sync speed, you can just set it and forget it. The fact that the non-flashed image is so well exposed means it's not going correctly. Stick with 1/125 for your shutter speed. I can't remember what flashes your working with, but they should have a manual mode. Once you start thinking carefully about your settings, it will slowly begin to be a bit easier. For practice, try the following: 

Get one subject, preferably someone who will sit stillish. Take one flash, set it to say, half power. Set your camera based on what you see when you take the first picture, until it looks pretty much right in the LCD (ideally you would have a flash meter but that's neither here nor there). Now, just play with where you put the light and see what happens, how it changes the way it looks. Once you are comfortable with one light, bring the second one into play. Set one on full, the other on half, and expand from there. The ability to craft the way the light works is the joy of studio work, and playing with it is the only way to learn. 

I don't really care for heavy PP in general, on little kids you probably do not have to do anything-- kids have great skin, usually.


----------



## rufus5150 (Dec 4, 2008)

+1 to Big Mike. White balance should at least be in the ballpark (you'll often find yourself doing small adjustments in post), focus, lighting, exposure. 

For the more portrait-ish images that I produce, my process is usually the following:

1. blemish correction - pimples, wayward hairs, etc -- it's usually kids so food-removal (grin)
2. Exposure correction - if needed, _small_ bumps to things like shadows/highlights -- these are often artistic choices rather than fixing something intrinsically wrong with the photo
3. Color correction
4. Contrast (curves mainly)
5. eye work -- I almost invariably apply a very tiny amount of dodging and burning to the eyes on an overlay layer. 
6. Sharpening
7. Special effects -- This, for me, is almost always limited to duplicating the image into its own layer with a multiply blend, and then running an extremely feathered selection to barely burn the edges of the image.

Sometimes before 6, I'll make artistic choices (cross-processed, black and white, desaturated, what have you.)


----------



## stsinner (Dec 4, 2008)

I appreciate the helpful post, tsaraleksi, but my problem might be that I'm working with very cheap flashes-the $20 Quantaray MS-1, which has only an on/off switch.  What I do is stop my sb600 all the way down and fire it up, which is enough to set off the optical strobes, because I have a relatively low white ceiling, and the Quantaray's fire at full power every time.  

Now, let's go from there-if there's anywhere to go with such a cheap setup.

Thanks for the help.


----------



## tsaraleksi (Dec 4, 2008)

You should be able to do everything I suggested with them in that case as well, except that the way you'll have to adjust the light ratios is by moving the flashes around. Light's intensity falls off fast, so you can just move them back a ways and you should be alright. Obviously it's not going to be the same as working with monolights but you should be able to get some pretty nice results with practice.

example: I shot this with a single light with the power turned all the way down: 






You should be able to shoot something like this with your set up, I think.


----------



## Johnboy2978 (Dec 4, 2008)

I think I might take the SB600 and attach it to the umbrella and learn to effectively light with only one and use a reflector for fill in.  Can you not use the SB600 off camera?  Check out the strobist.com and this may be helpful as well: http://www.lowel.com/edu/foundations_of_lighting.html


----------



## stsinner (Dec 4, 2008)

Johnboy2978 said:


> I think I might take the SB600 and attach it to the umbrella and learn to effectively light with only one and use a reflector for fill in.  Can you not use the SB600 off camera?  Check out the strobist.com and this may be helpful as well: http://www.lowel.com/edu/foundations_of_lighting.html




Thanks, but the D50 doesn't have capability for off-camera flash..  I would imagine there's some sort of hot-shoe mount cabled thingie I can buy, I don't know..  I think I would be doing all right if I could just get the white balance figured out, because it's not real straight forward.  For example, one time when I was photographing our training at the fire department, neither fluorescent or incandescent worked-I had to set it on cloudy for the colors to be true, which doesn't make sense to me at first thought because we were indoors at night..  I am going to check out the link you provided.


----------



## stsinner (Dec 4, 2008)

tsaraleksi said:


> You should be able to do everything I suggested with them in that case as well, except that the way you'll have to adjust the light ratios is by moving the flashes around. Light's intensity falls off fast, so you can just move them back a ways and you should be alright. Obviously it's not going to be the same as working with monolights but you should be able to get some pretty nice results with practice.
> 
> example: I shot this with a single light with the power turned all the way down:
> 
> ...




Chalk this question up to being new and not criticizing your work, but is that considered a good portrait, even though half of his face is so dark that it's unseen?  Again, I'm honestly asking and learning what's considered good work.

Thanks.


----------



## stsinner (Dec 4, 2008)

And do most people fire through their umbrellas or use them as reflectors?  I'm pretty sure your next question would be what kind of umbrella, as I'd imagine that matters.  Mine are translucent white.


----------



## tsaraleksi (Dec 4, 2008)

stsinner said:


> Chalk this question up to being new and not criticizing your work, but is that considered a good portrait, even though half of his face is so dark that it's unseen?  Again, I'm honestly asking and learning what's considered good work.
> 
> Thanks.



What does the side of his head contribute to the image? Flat even lighting is uninteresting.


----------



## stsinner (Dec 4, 2008)

tsaraleksi said:


> What does the side of his head contribute to the image? Flat even lighting is uninteresting.



That's a good point, but I was just wondering if that black area would be considered an oversight, inadequate lighting, or perfectly acceptable.  Again, I'm not criticizing, but asking in order to learn.

I think I'll try some portraits tonight if my two little models are in the mood...  With a 1 year old baby, it's so hit or miss...


----------



## Jklersy (Dec 4, 2008)

I believe your umbrellas are designed to shoot through, not bounce.  

My 13 month old is my subject most nights also, and moods vary often and quickly!

GL!


----------



## tsaraleksi (Dec 4, 2008)

stsinner said:


> That's a good point, but I was just wondering if that black area would be considered an oversight, inadequate lighting, or perfectly acceptable.  Again, I'm not criticizing, but asking in order to learn.
> 
> I think I'll try some portraits tonight if my two little models are in the mood...  With a 1 year old baby, it's so hit or miss...



As far as I'm concerned it's not considered a problem at all.


----------



## Early (Dec 4, 2008)

stsinner said:


> Well, I look at the portraits that are on my walls, and they just look so good.  I thought they were just taking the picture, but reading in here, it seems post work is almost always done with people shots-weddings, portraits, etc..  I thought taking a good picture was just a matter of knowing what settings to set on your camera, but post work is turning out to be much more prevalent than I expected.  I just wondered if there are certain filters or actions that everyone knows can take a portrait from okay to wow..  I guess I really don't know how to ask the question, so I hope someone can translate my thoughts..
> 
> Looking at my portrait shots, I think I had a white balance issue, as well in my latest bunch, but the color just looks so blah..
> 
> ...


Whatever you did wrong in the second shot, do it again because, other than some of the highlights being washed out (very easily done with digital), it was somewhat correctable in PS, while I couldn't much of anything with the first.  I couldn't tone down the lost highs in the second, but did manage to color correct it, at least to my satisfaction.:mrgreen:

Anyway, one problem at a time.
1. Can you turn your WB off and go from there till you learn what's what?
2. I am not sure what flash set up you are using, but if you have to use manual, I assume you will need a flash meter and set your aperture accordingly.  Without a flash meter, you will have to work with guide numbers, and then measure the distance between the strobes and your subjects.  I'm also pretty sure they make a thingie that sits atop your hot shoe that would connect with your strobes via a PC contact.


----------



## kundalini (Dec 4, 2008)

stsinner said:


> Thanks, but the D50 doesn't have capability for off-camera flash...


 There are solutions to go off camera.... like Cactus triggers, Radio Poppers, PWs & PC Synch cords.  Use the Search function or Google.  It has been discussed quite extensively on TPF.  If your umbrella does not have a backing, then it's likely a shoot through.


----------



## andrew99 (Dec 4, 2008)

Lighting is the most important thing .. if you can't adjust your flashes, your only options is to move the lights further away, and stop down your aperture.  You could even try rotating your umbrellas around and try them as reflecting umbrellas instead of shoot-throughs.

Regarding post processing, your photos lack a bit of contrast.. I increased the contrast using the curves command in photoshop, and cropped the picture a bit and adjusted the white balance.  Increasing the contrast also brings out the colours more.  The only other change I did was a quick butcher job to cover up that while door way!    Cute kids, btw!


----------



## stsinner (Dec 4, 2008)

Thank you so much for the cute kids comment..  I'm in love with them, although that picture you posted has my youngest looking like a down syndrome baby, which she's not.. Just caught her at a bad moment....  

I have only used my umbrellas as reflectors, just fyi..  I never thought of shooting through them until someone in here mentioned it, because I can remember years ago going to an Olan Mills studio and having huge umbrellas with lights shining up into them (as reflectors) and when they snapped the shot the umbrella lights flashed..  What the heck-a flash with two levels..  Still haven't pursued what that migh be...  Probably something common that I just don't know about, but I've always had my umbrellas acting as reflectors.  Now I'm going to try shooting through them..  

Now I have a real question that I'm going to address in the next post...


----------



## stsinner (Dec 4, 2008)

I thought my shots suffered from white balance problems, but I was playing around tonight and seeing if my Quantarays are powerful enough to shoot throug the umbrellas and all I adjusted was the shutter speed, and it turned into what looked like a white balance problem, leading me to believe that what I had might have been a shutter speed problem.....  breath.....

Examine the exif data, and you'll see that all I adjusted was the shutter speed...

Here is the flash through the umbrella-as I indicated, there's only one power, and that's full:

Three different shutter speeds:
















And here's a shutter speed adjustment that appears to create a white balance problem:






And here's what it looked like with the Quantaray turned off and everything else set the same:






Does every pretty much agree that I should be shooting through my umbrellas at this point, and not using them as reflectors?

Thanks for the info.


----------



## andrew99 (Dec 4, 2008)

Those umbrellas are shoot-throughs.  I have similar ones.  They can be used either way, though, just with different efficiency.  Shoot-throughs are good since you can get them closer to your subject.

You should be using the fastest shutter speed you can, that way your shot won't be contaminated by the ambient light.  Probably 1/200 or 1/250.  The shutter speed doesn't effect the flash power, it only affects the ambient light.  If you use a slow shutter speed, you'll get a mix of the flash and ambient, which are different colours, and this is what's causing the colour cast on your photos.  So use a fast shutter speed and set the camera's white balance to flash or daylight, not auto.


----------



## kundalini (Dec 4, 2008)

This seems like deja vu because I'm sure that I commented on preparation and planning on one of your shots before. A couch with a throw and an AC unit comes to mind. It appears you have plenty of backdrop to the left, yet you shoot from a point of view from the left where the backdrop ends. Why? Only to get the distracting elements of an opened door into the toilet? I would think that if you moved your position to camera right some, if not all, of that distraction would have been eliminated. It may have also moved the gaped opening of the "curtains" from lining up with the top of the girl's head on the left.

Secondly, be aware of the color combinations you have going on. The amount of red is overwhelming. The girls have auburn hair, the backdrop is in the red family and a dull color to boot, the girls have pink tights on, the blanket is embossed with red patches, their tops have red stripes and they have light pink skin color (as they should). A change of wardrobe may have been a benefit.

I don't know, but has anyone mention motion blur? The little girl on the right must have moved during exposure. With a flash at hand, this should have been easily eliminated. That or your focus is off. It is accentuated by Andrew's crop. (btw Andrew, you missed a bit by her elbow....) Bring up your shutter speed to around 1/125s minimum, but probably up to your sycnh speed.

Just a few thoughts and my 2¢.


----------



## stsinner (Dec 4, 2008)

kundalini said:


> This seems like deja vu because I'm sure that I commented on preparation and planning on one of your shots before. A couch with a throw and an AC unit comes to mind. It appears you have plenty of backdrop to the left, yet you shoot from a point of view from the left where the backdrop ends. Why? Only to get the distracting elements of an opened door into the toilet? I would think that if you moved your position to camera right some, if not all, of that distraction would have been eliminated. It may have also moved the gaped opening of the "curtains" from lining up with the top of the girl's head on the left.



Those are some pretty good points, and just to be clear and so that you don't think my eye that THAT terrible, I knew these shots would be junk, and I was just taking pictures to learn and to take pictures..  I wasn't expecting great portraits, and, therefore, didn't put much effort into the composition and backdrops..  I just wanted to see what I was in for when I did want to take serious portraits...


----------



## kundalini (Dec 4, 2008)

andrew99 said:


> So use a fast shutter speed and set the camera's white balance to flash or daylight, not auto.


 B-b-b-b-ut if you can adjust the WB in post (shooting RAW), what does it matter?  I shoot everything in WB Auto..... could care less.  LR2 allows me to adjust to the tempertue I want.


----------



## kundalini (Dec 4, 2008)

stsinner said:


> Those are some pretty good points, and just to be clear and so that you don't think my eye that THAT terrible, I knew these shots would be junk, and I was just taking pictures to learn and to take pictures.. I wasn't expecting great portraits, and, therefore, didn't put much effort into the composition and backdrops.. I just wanted to see what I was in for when I did want to take serious portraits...


 There is a "Just For Fun" gallery.  Perhaps........................

Why post something you know is "junk" in a gallery where learning is paramount?  Oh... I understand............................................... nevermind.


----------



## ksmattfish (Dec 4, 2008)

It's all about the light.  Get the book "Light, Science & Magic".


----------



## stsinner (Dec 4, 2008)

kundalini said:


> There is a "Just For Fun" gallery.  Perhaps........................
> 
> Why post something you know is "junk" in a gallery where learning is paramount?  Oh... I understand............................................... nevermind.



Are you kidding me?  Are you really being that much of a dick?  What I'm saying is that I took pictures, not expecting them to be great, but trying different settings and asking why these settings didn't work.. If you don't have the patience for people asking questions, maybe you shouldn't be offering advice..  Jesus.

I would really like to learn why a shutter speed selection looks like a white balance problem, etc, but I'm not going to fret over backgrounds while taking training pictures and trying to learn this...  

I think you should stay out of the beginner forum if that's all the patience you have.  What are you doing in the beginner forum with your attitude and 4600+ posts?  Just looking for people to insult?  I may be a new photographer, but I'm not new to being a man, and your attitude sucks.

One problem I continute to see..  Seasoned (friendly) members say to the abrasive old timers, "That's what makes people leave this forum.."  

You know, you and others seem to have the attitude that if they sense that you know the least bit about what you're asking about, you're being an attention whore, and they belittle you..  I've done many things in my life, including being charged with million-dollar aircraft and a flight platoon in the Army, but I'm new to "good" photography..  I can take pictures all day long, but I can't take good pictures..  I don't need your condescending attitude or arrogance when I ask you a question, because I can pretty much guarantee you that, although I may not have the eye behind the lens that you have yet, I've done more in my life and lived in more countries and states than you have an experienced a great deal more in life than you have..  

How about treating me like a man and not judging me and acting like you know the reason why I asked a question, as you did in your last post..  I could delete my account on this board tomorrow, and my life wouldn't skip a beat, but I've encountered the most friendly people on this board as I have on any photo forum I've subscribed to, so I really wanted to set up shot here.  But your attitude sucks, and I don't have the patience at my age to deal with arrogant clowns like you.

I'm not an artsy-fartsy type of fellow that you'd encounter in SanFran..  I grew up in the Midwest, and I cut my teeth in the Army, so deal with me like a man, and not a pansy..  I don't need your "photographers are the be-all, end-all" attitude.  I just want to be able to ask questions without being called stupid..  I'm not politically correct, and I approach things as I see them, so be a man or don't address me..  Don't assume that you know why I asked a question.  Either answer it was good knowledge, or don't answer it..  I don't need your judgment.  I'm just trying to learn.. I will ask a stupid question..  I will ask bunches of them.


----------



## MelodySoul (Dec 4, 2008)

Just a thought and I'm not trying to be rude but it seems like you have a lot of equipment for someone who hasn't mastered the basics. I think you are trying to do too much too soon and it's making learning harder than it needs to be. Learn how to shoot manual, play with natural light...get that down and then move to studio lighting. That's just my opinion though.

As for PP, there are some photographers who rely on it to make a good portrait but personally I feel that a great portrait shouldn't require too much PP at all. All I do generally is a basic portrait retouch, that includes fixing any blemishes or stray hairs, using curves, a little sharpening and white balance correction.


----------



## kundalini (Dec 4, 2008)

stsinner said:


> Are you kidding me? Are you really being that much of a dick?


Apparently...



stsinner said:


> What I'm saying is that I took pictures, not expecting them to be great, but trying different settings and asking why these settings didn't work.. If you don't have the patience for people asking questions, maybe you shouldn't be offering advice.. Jesus.


Yet you start this thread trying to be all serious and stuff............. So by pointing out a few flaws (in my eyes) that may help you in the future is a bad thing? Oh, and to insulate yourself from serious critique, you would prefer to have all happy faces for your responses?



stsinner said:


> I would really like to learn why a shutter speed selection looks like a white balance problem, etc, but I'm not going to fret over backgrounds while taking training pictures and trying to learn this....


Which promotes the "Just For Fun" gallery. There's no need for embarassment for this gallery. It definetly serves a purpose.



stsinner said:


> I think you should stay out of the beginner forum if that's all the patience you have. What are you doing in the beginner forum with your attitude and 4600+ posts? Just looking for people to insult? I may be a new photographer, but I'm not new to being a man, and your attitude sucks.....


I think you should rethink and revist my posts. To be honest, I feel I can contribute in a positive manner to the "Beginners Forum". So to make this an even exchange, it is probably a good idea if you put me on your Ignore List. I vow to not interject my thoughts and opinions onto your posts in the future and likewise you completely ignore my (possible) assistance that is directed to another member of TPF.



stsinner said:


> One problem I continute to see.. Seasoned (friendly) members say to the abrasive old timers, "That's what makes people leave this forum.."
> 
> You know, you and others seem to have the attitude that if they sense that you know the least bit about what you're asking about, you're being an attention whore, and they belittle you.. I've done many things in my life, including being charged with million-dollar aircraft and a flight platoon in the Army, but I'm new to "good" photography.. I can take pictures all day long, but I can't take good pictures.. I don't need your condescending attitude or arrogance when I ask you a question, because I can pretty much guarantee you that, although I may not have the eye behind the lens that you have yet, I've done more in my life and lived in more countries and states than you have an experienced a great deal more in life than you have.


Surely you're not finished....... carry on...........



stsinner said:


> How about treating me like a man and not judging me and acting like you know the reason why I asked a question, as you did it your last post.. I could delete my account on this board tomorrow, and my like wouldn't skip a beat, but I've encountered the most friendly people on this board as I have on any photo forum I've subscribed to, so I really wanted to set up shot here. But your attitude sucks, and I don't have the patience at my age to deal with arrogant clowns like you.


Have I not extended my "patience" to this point? I feel sad that you are at a point of frustration. Perhaps it is not me that you are in angst towards, but mirroring the vexation of "getting the shot". I have only tried to be of assistance towards you goal. Taking jabs at me is fruitless on your part. Homey don't play that game. I strive to be an advocate of good will and promote the art of photography with the limited knowledge I have. 

Perhaps I should be the one to forego the existences on TPF and you are to rule. My apologies to be so presumptious.

I was really hoping to reach 5K posts, but perhaps that is a goal for another forum. Anyone have any good suggestions where to go next? I'm no longer wanted on TPF.


In the end, if my apologies did not appease you stsinner...... I could care less. The only addition to these comments is for you to grow a pair.


----------



## stsinner (Dec 4, 2008)

MelodySoul said:


> Just a thought and I'm not trying to be rude but it seems like you have a lot of equipment for someone who hasn't mastered the basics. I think you are trying to do too much too soon and it's making learning harder than it needs to be. Learn how to shoot manual, play with natural light...get that down and then move to studio lighting. That's just my opinion though.



Not taken as rude, at all, and I'll agree that I have a bunch of equipment for a beginner, but I also don't think that I should be subjected to rude posts like the previous poster just because I may have asked the same question twice but in a different way..  I am a friendly person, and I, maybe naively, expect friendliness, but I would like to just consider myself among friends and not be afraid to maybe ask the same question twice expecting different advice without being insulted..  

I do have a lot to learn about photography, but I don't really have all that much to learn in order to be able to know a rude person when I see one..  

If you don't want to answer my dumb questions, or if you think I've asked the same question before a different way, how about just ignoring it and not trying to be some kind of abrasive hero...  I promise you I'm not looking for anything but honest advice about my technique and settings..  Thanks.

I do take constructive criticism constructively, but the previous posts weren't productive at all...





Basically--I do have a bunch of junk, now just help me use it correctly and don't insult me for not knowing how to use it!!


----------



## kundalini (Dec 4, 2008)

Okay, sorry, but one more response on my part.  Looking at your response to Melody and obviously referring to me......



stsinner said:


> Not taken as rude, at all, and I'll agree that I have a bunch of equipment for a beginner, but I also don't think that I should be subjected to rude posts like the previous poster just because I may have asked the same question twice but in a different way.. I am a friendly person, and I, maybe naively, expect friendliness, but I would like to just consider myself among friends and not be afraid to maybe ask the same question twice expecting different advice without being insulted..
> 
> I do have a lot to learn about photography, but I don't really have all that much to learn in order to be able to know a rude person when I see one..
> 
> If you don't want to answer my dumb questions, or if you think I've asked the same question before a different way, how about just ignoring it and not trying to be some kind of abrasive hero... I promise you I'm not looking for anything but honest advice about my technique and settings.. Thanks.


 
And this is what you are pissed off about.............



kundalini said:


> There is a "Just For Fun" gallery. Perhaps........................
> 
> Why post something you know is "junk" in a gallery where learning is paramount? Oh... I understand............................................... nevermind.


 
I just don't understand.


----------



## tsaraleksi (Dec 4, 2008)

Anyway. 

Did you get a chance to sit anyone down for some portraits tonight?


----------



## goodoneian (Dec 4, 2008)

don't know your question has been answered yet stsinner, but the change of the shutter speed looks like a white balance problem because your flashes color temperature is matched for the sun i would assume (around 5000k) but the ambient tungsten lights of your house are not (2000-3000k maybe? idk).

so when you use a longer shutter speed, you record the ambient light that is at a different temperature than your camera is set to which tends to screw the image up some. hopefully this makes sense


----------



## stsinner (Dec 4, 2008)

tsaraleksi said:


> Anyway.
> 
> Did you get a chance to sit anyone down for some portraits tonight?



I did, and I have more pictures to ask advice on that I'll be posting.. Let me get the girls to bed..  Thanks for asking.


----------



## stsinner (Dec 4, 2008)

goodoneian said:


> don't know your question has been answered yet stsinner, but the change of the shutter speed looks like a white balance problem because your flashes color temperature is matched for the sun i would assume (around 5000k) but the ambient tungsten lights of your house are not (2000-3000k maybe? idk).
> 
> so when you use a longer shutter speed, you record the ambient light that is at a different temperature than your camera is set to which tends to screw the image up some. hopefully this makes sense



Wow!!  While I appreciate your advice, I have no idea what you just said!!  I don't know how light can be "long" and I have no idea about temperature of lights..  That is something that I, admittedly, must still learn...  When I move the temperature slider in Picasa, it responds to me like the tint dial of my TV...  I have a lot of learning to do...


----------



## Dao (Dec 4, 2008)

Basically what he mean was ...

1. Your camera expect the light source to be flash light (white balance set to that)

2. When shutter speed is slow, the light that goes into your camera are light from your flash light AND the surrounding light.

3. But the surround light color are not the same as your flash, so your pictures were colored.

However, if the shutter speed is fast, the surrounding light has very little effect on your exposure.


----------



## andrew99 (Dec 4, 2008)

Wow, some hostility in here.  I don't get some of the comments .. you need equipment in order to learn and practice this stuff.

Anyways..The white balance problem is caused by the flash being a different colour than the lights in your house.  Regular tungsten lights (ie: normal light bulbs) give an orangy tint.  Flashes are designed to match daylight, which is more blue.  So when you mix your home lighting and your flashes, you're going to get a weird colour cast.  

If you use a fast shutter speed, you will eliminate the ambient (house) lighting.  You can prove this by taking a picture at a high shutter speed (1/200th of a second) without triggering the flashes, and you will get a black or almost black photo.  Add the  flashes, and you will get a photo lit only by the flashes.  The flash blast only lasts an instant, so this allows you to use faster shutter speeds (up to your cameras max sync speed -- usually 1/200 or 1/250 on most cameras).  Also you get the added bonus of freezing movement and camera shake.


----------



## MelodySoul (Dec 4, 2008)

andrew99 said:


> Wow, some hostility in here. I don't get some of the comments .. you need equipment in order to learn and practice this stuff.


 
If this is in response to my post all I meant is that I feel that he is trying to learn more advanced things before he has mastered the basics of photography. Learn to create a proper exposure before attempting to do a studio set up. What's not to get about that?


----------



## stsinner (Dec 5, 2008)

MelodySoul said:


> If this is in response to my post all I meant is that I feel that he is trying to learn more advanced things before he has mastered the basics of photography. Learn to create a proper exposure before attempting to do a studio set up. What's not to get about that?



You're right, but one of the things that I'm really interested in is portraits...  My wife had this goal of taking our own milestone pictures of our girls (1 year picture, etc.), instead of paying a professional..  And every time I've had professional pictures taken they've used umbrellas, so, naturally, I thought I needed umbrellas...  Unfortunately, I bought cheap flashes for them that don't have any control-just on and off, and I'm having trouble with the timing.  It doesn't seem like that's too terribly advance an issue to overcome, so I have begun asking these types of questions.  It's the first situation I've encountered where Auto mode won't even take a decent picture.  I was forced into Manual mode in order to control when the flashes fire more accurately, and so I'm in unfamiliar territory.


----------



## Dao (Dec 5, 2008)

I think you really need to get out of Auto mode and start trying with different settings on your camera without any flash.

This is my logic flow, please correct me if I am wrong because I have not use off camera flash and I am still a beginner.

1. Use a small toy doll or a stuff animal toy from your daughter (if they let you .. haha) and place it in your set up.

2. Use AV mode and take a picture.  You may want to try it with F/5.6 to F/8.  If you are able to find a good picture with the AV mode.  Note down the ISO, Shutter speed as well as the Aperture settings.

3. Now, change your camera to manual mode.  Use the same settings you got on step 2 and take a picture.

4.  If that looks ok, then add one flash (one flash, not 2).  If the flash give 2 extra 2 stops of light, just stop down 2.  i.e. jump from F/5.6 to F/11 and see how it looks. ( you can also play with the ISO and shutter speed.  But just make sure the shutter speed do not exeed the max sync speed of your camera equipment.  For my camera, it is 1/250)  The EV table listed in the wikipedia maybe helpful

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposure_value


5. It is going to be trial and errors until you find a settings that works for your setup and environment.  If possible, dim down all other lights when trying.


6. Now, since you have 2 umbrellas/flashed, once you are able to produce a good exposure with one umbrella/flash setup, you can try it with 2 sets and follow the same steps listed above.


Again, this is coming from me that have no experience on this but if I have a setup like that, that is what I will try and experiment with it.


----------



## stsinner (Dec 5, 2008)

That's great advice, and I plan to try it.  Thanks..  I never thought of that, and maybe that's a fundamental basic thing I should have thought of-let the camera choose some setting and them use time in manual..  Silly me.

It sucks when your house is full of people (4 kids) and every room is used..  You have to set up, take down, set up, take down......  I'll try this technique tonight.


----------



## stsinner (Dec 5, 2008)

I know the poses are terrible, but the girls were very uncooperative today..  So, aside from the poses and the background, how is the exposure, etc?  I used my SB600 bounced off the ceiling, and for all the good that a 50 has, it forced me to get much too close, causing shadows to be cast..  

I haven't touched it in post, but I think that maybe with some cooperative girls and a nice backdrop, I may be able to pull this off..  I'd love your comments, as I do need to learn.  Please let me know specifically the picture lacks in terms of technique.  Thanks.

Anyway, I started up with a black screen shot and worked my way to getting this with setting adjustments:


----------



## tsaraleksi (Dec 5, 2008)

This is much better exposure wise. Did you use the other lights in this one?


----------



## OldClicker (Dec 5, 2008)

IMHO, your problem may be that you are looking for some kind of trick or setting or gadget that will make you a good portrait photographer.  What it really takes is years of study and hard work.  There is no shortcut.  BTW - this post seems to be a great start. - TF


----------



## viridari (Dec 5, 2008)

stsinner said:


> Looking at my portrait shots, I think I had a white balance issue, as well in my latest bunch, but the color just looks so blah..



The first thing I notice is that they are completely washed out with light and there is no shadow.

I think with good use of flash, you _diminish_ shadow, or even _enhance_ the image through _manipulation_ of shadow through lighting technique.

This is a hastily done example, but with just one strobe used creatively (off-camera) you can get good color and detail.  I would do this image a little differently if I meant it to be a serious portrait but this was more or less just experimenting with using a single strobe to see how effective it could be for portraiture.





My main beef with that is that too much of her eye surface area is in shadow, and the eyes are how we connect with our subjects.  Easily remedied.  

This was another test shot, done with two lights.  The lights are off to either side of the subject, not in front of the subject.  Once could hardly say that the color or detail has been washed out of this.





I'd be interested in hearing more about how your lights are set up and what sort of exposure you're using.


----------



## viridari (Dec 5, 2008)

stsinner said:


> I know the poses are terrible, but the girls were very uncooperative today..  So, aside from the poses and the background, how is the exposure, etc?  I used my SB600 bounced off the ceiling, and for all the good that a 50 has, it forced me to get much too close, causing shadows to be cast..



Shadows are nothing to fear.  It's just that in this case, the shadows cover the eyes.  Soft shadows are OK but we need to be mindful of where they fall.

The exposure is better on this one.  Don't be afraid to try getting up into 1/200 or 1/250 range which will let in even less ambient light, allowing the clean light from the flash to dominate.

If you can't take your flash off the camera, experiment with bouncing it sideways off of a nearby wall.  You can use a piece of white poster board just out of frame on the other side of the subject as a reflector to reduce (but not eliminate!) the shadows.


----------



## stsinner (Dec 5, 2008)

tsaraleksi said:


> This is much better exposure wise. Did you use the other lights in this one?



Nope..  I had a window to the right of the girls (their right) but in the wall behind them, so it wasn't direct light, but light, nonetheless.  And I had my SB600 in auto TTL mode at an angle (forward).  The camera was in completely Manual mode, so I was happy to work my way to where I ended up..  I took about 30 pictures.  Then I turned my flash off and the picture was completely black.  I was just playing around at this point in order to learn.  I knew the girls were tired of being photographed and wouldn't cooperate, so I just kept making adjustments..  The light being cast from the window I mentioned has a blue tint to it, because it's reflecting off the tar driveway outside, and the other room has translucent curtains covering the windows, so it was dark and challenging, but I stayed in Manual and just kept working with it.  This is what I got.  I know it has some exposure issues, but I can't put my finger on them..  Maybe you guys can help:


----------



## stsinner (Dec 5, 2008)

viridari, one think I noticed about your portraits is how close you are, but you can't be in the subjects' faces with your camera, so do you take portraits with a zoom lens?  I was using my 50 for detail, but maybe I should try with the 70-300 at about 100mm...  Is that a good idea, or not?

Also, how did you avoid reflections on the glasses of that male subject?  CPL?


----------



## stsinner (Dec 5, 2008)

viridari said:


> I'd be interested in hearing more about how your lights are set up and what sort of exposure you're using.


----------



## viridari (Dec 5, 2008)

By "zoom" I think you mean "telephoto".  A "zoom" lens is just one that can change focal lengths, but doesn't necessarily imply whether it is wide angle or telephoto or both.

I was using a 50mm lens on a Canon XTi, which is a cropped-sensor camera, so the effective focal length was 80mm.  Yes, I was pretty close to my subjects.

You can get the same effect with 100mm just a little further back.  The longer focal lengths will flatten the depth of the image, which could be a good or bad thing depending on what you're going for.

Glasses are tricky!  The lighting setup that I described really avoided that.  I almost never use flash directly from the camera.  The headshot of the man was taken with two off-camera flashes.  The one on camera-left was firing through a small white umbrella that was probably less than a foot from his face.  This gives a really nice soft light.

The other one was on a stand at camera right and bouncing off of a reflective silver lined umbrella.  This fills a wider area and would normally be considered a harder light given the greater distance, but it wasn't a very powerful light so you don't get much of that effect.

These lights were off to the sides of the subject, not in front of him, so the reflection off of the glass was oblique with respect to the camera lens.  Someone standing off to the sides would have seen a strong glare.  But looking straight-on at the subject, it's a nice clean shot.

It would have been better with a third light behind him as a "rim light" or "kicker" to help define his edges more crisply and set him off from the background more.

He was standing in a vacant parking deck.  The flash was turned up high enough to drown out the poor color temperature of the overhead lighting.  The short shutter speed also helped in squelching out the ambient light.

One of the best things you can do for your portraiture is get the flash off of the camera.  http://strobist.com is a great resource for learning this stuff, and I highly suggest taking some time to sit down and read through the lessons there.


----------



## viridari (Dec 5, 2008)

stsinner said:


>



Well yeah I can read your EXIF, too.  But I was referring more to your lighting, not your exposure settings.  i.e. was sunlight coming in?  What kind of ambient lighting was in the room and where was it coming from?  How many flashes are in the room, where are they located, how high were they turned up, and what modifiers were used with them?

It looked kind of like a single flash on the camera pointing right at the subjects which is going to wash them out and not give you the warm kind of portraits that I think you're expecting.


----------



## tsaraleksi (Dec 5, 2008)

The blue color is from the daylight itself-- it doesn't have anything to do with the pavement, it's simply a different color than the light produced by indoor light fixtures. Mixed light color is a big pain that can be tough to overcome, and is often really best beaten by using strobes/flashes (or just putting the image in black and white !) .


----------



## viridari (Dec 5, 2008)

tsaraleksi said:


> The blue color is from the daylight itself-- it doesn't have anything to do with the pavement, it's simply a different color than the light produced by indoor light fixtures. Mixed light color is a big pain that can be tough to overcome, and is often really best beaten by using strobes/flashes (or just putting the image in black and white !) .



Or take a reference shot with a grey card and the same lighting/exposure so that you can determine the best white balance settings for the grey card reference pic, and apply those same settings to the actual portrait.


----------



## tsaraleksi (Dec 5, 2008)

viridari said:


> Or take a reference shot with a grey card and the same lighting/exposure so that you can determine the best white balance settings for the grey card reference pic, and apply those same settings to the actual portrait.



This can help but if you have more than one color of light, then when you set the WB for one color, it will be wrong for the other. In theory a lot of post work can make a difference, by going in and spot correcting.


----------



## viridari (Dec 5, 2008)

tsaraleksi said:


> This can help but if you have more than one color of light, then when you set the WB for one color, it will be wrong for the other. In theory a lot of post work can make a difference, by going in and spot correcting.



Yeah I often work in areas with really really poor ambient lighting.  My favorite way to deal with this honestly is just to try to overwhelm the subject with flash and leverage that in the exposure to squelch out the ambient light.


----------



## stsinner (Dec 5, 2008)

Thank you both..  Lots of good advice and info..  Strobist seems to be a very popularly recommended site..  I've gone there several times, but evidently I need to read more..


----------



## stsinner (Dec 5, 2008)

So I turned off the umbrella flashes and simply attached the LightSphere Cloud to see what I could get, and I switched to the 70-300.








What do you think of these pictures when looking at them critically:












Thanks for the info.


----------



## tsaraleksi (Dec 5, 2008)

Your dropping your shutter speed again, which is why they've got red/orange creeping into the images like in the first ones you posted.


----------



## Flower Child (Dec 5, 2008)

oh my goodness. i have learned so much from just looking at this post. 

stsinner: that second one you did (on the first page) with them on the couch is much better


----------



## goodoneian (Dec 5, 2008)

stsinner said:


> viridari, one think I noticed about your portraits is how close you are, but you can't be in the subjects' faces with your camera, so do you take portraits with a zoom lens?  I was using my 50 for detail, but maybe I should try with the 70-300 at about 100mm...  Is that a good idea, or not?
> 
> Also, how did you avoid reflections on the glasses of that male subject?  CPL?



it's all about light positioning 

http://strobist.blogspot.com/2006/04/lighting-101-lighting-for-glasses.html


----------



## MelodySoul (Dec 7, 2008)

stsinner said:


> You're right, but one of the things that I'm really interested in is portraits... My wife had this goal of taking our own milestone pictures of our girls (1 year picture, etc.), instead of paying a professional.. And every time I've had professional pictures taken they've used umbrellas, so, naturally, I thought I needed umbrellas... Unfortunately, I bought cheap flashes for them that don't have any control-just on and off, and I'm having trouble with the timing. It doesn't seem like that's too terribly advance an issue to overcome, so I have begun asking these types of questions. It's the first situation I've encountered where Auto mode won't even take a decent picture. I was forced into Manual mode in order to control when the flashes fire more accurately, and so I'm in unfamiliar territory.


 
Ah ok I see. I know you're just trying to get the settings right and that's why most of the shots are taken on the sofa but why not go outside or somewhere with a nice background and then play around? That way if you get a good exposure you might end up with a really great shot! It will be great practice and you'll get some good candids.


----------



## viridari (Dec 7, 2008)

MelodySoul said:


> but why not go outside or somewhere with a nice background and then play around?



:lmao:

You don't have small children around, do you?

He's very lucky to get the images he's gotten.


----------



## stsinner (Dec 7, 2008)

That's a great idea, but it is 18 degrees F here right now, and snow is on the ground..  It takes a lot to get me to bundle the girls up and take them outside for pics in this weather..  Plus my shivering might cause some camera shake..LOL


----------



## Chewbecca (Dec 7, 2008)

Are you shooting into a pitch black room with these?
Because even with just a lamp on, you should be able to put your ISO to 400, your shutter speed to 1/200-1/250, aperture @f4/f5.6 and still get PLENTY of light in your pictures without the funky orange/red/magenta coloring.
Are you shooting in RAW?
Sorry, I haven't had time to read this whole thread.

Your couch looks yellow (I can tell it's green, but it has a yellowness to it), and your daughter tends to have a magenta tone to her skin mixed with an orangey tint most likely due to the light bouncing off that gorgeous red hair of hers.


----------



## stsinner (Dec 7, 2008)

Actually, my couch is tan.  And, no, it was relatively well let when I took these shots.  I just have no damn idea what I'm doing.  I'm basically doing everything that is recommended like a robot in order to get better, because I don't know enough to question anyone's advice..  

I have no idea why I was at ISO 800 with 1/15 shutter speed in those shots...  I'm going to have to pay closer attention.


----------



## viridari (Dec 7, 2008)

stsinner said:


>





			
				EXIF Tags said:
			
		

> EXIF tags in '12_05_2008_5105.jpg' ('Intel' byte order):
> --------------------+----------------------------------------------------------
> Tag                 |Value
> --------------------+----------------------------------------------------------
> ...



Something is really really wrong with your lighting.  Your flash fired, but your at 1/15 f/4.2.  I don't see ISO in your EXIF tags but you're saying ISO 800.  Your camera is starving for light here.  I just tried those settings in my really dim home office here and it seemed to be useful settings for a subject sitting next to a bright desk lamp but even a small amount of flash would blow it out.

Also you're using a manual white balance setup but as others noted that's off.  I'm color blind so I can't comment specifically on why it's off but even to me it looks off.


----------



## stsinner (Dec 7, 2008)

Yeah, I went into Nikon ViewNX, and it said I was at 800.  I also checked what white balance setting I had selected, and it was Flash, as I was using my SB600..

Think something's wrong with my camera?


----------



## viridari (Dec 7, 2008)

No, I'm not suggesting there is something wrong with your camera.

Just for giggles, if you want to try something, I'm interested in a little experiment.  Put your camera in the dreaded "P mode" and try another picture of someone on the same couch.  Even put your flash in dummy mode.  And auto white balance.  I'm interested in seeing the EXIF tags.  And if the white balance comes out OK.


----------



## stsinner (Dec 7, 2008)

viridari said:


> No, I'm not suggesting there is something wrong with your camera.
> 
> Just for giggles, if you want to try something, I'm interested in a little experiment.  Put your camera in the dreaded "P mode" and try another picture of someone on the same couch.  Even put your flash in dummy mode.  And auto white balance.  I'm interested in seeing the EXIF tags.  And if the white balance comes out OK.


 
Will a doll suffice?  And you mean the SB600, or on-camera flash, or does it matter?


----------



## viridari (Dec 7, 2008)

stsinner said:


> Will a doll suffice?  And you mean the SB600, or on-camera flash, or does it matter?



A doll will do fine.

Use whatever flash you used for the photo that I quoted a little earlier tonight.  Same hardware as the other photo but auto settings, including on the flash and white balance.


----------



## stsinner (Dec 7, 2008)

Okay, so I did what you asked-SB600 bounced in the first and not in the second.  Hope my dog works for a subject for what you're trying to determine


----------



## viridari (Dec 7, 2008)

Interesting.  Do you know what ISO was used?  It's not in the EXIF tags.


----------



## stsinner (Dec 7, 2008)

Oh, dang it!  I was using my 70-300 lens, and that may explain why I was starving for light!  Those pics I just took were with my 18-55.  Would that be the reason?

In the dog pics, I had the WB in auto.


----------



## viridari (Dec 7, 2008)

stsinner said:


> Oh, dang it!  I was using my 70-300 lens, and that may explain why I was starving for light!  Those pics I just took were with my 18-55.  What that be the reason?



No.  Actually remember I said you had f/4.2 @ 1/15 on the other pic?  You're at 1/60 f/5.6 now so the camera is getting more light here.  Either from the flash or from using a higher ISO (higher than 800??)  The difference in lens shouldn't matter here unless you were much closer to your subject so the flash reached more easily.


----------



## stsinner (Dec 7, 2008)

My exif says the dog pics were at 800.  I didn't know you could st the ISO in P mode-I've only used A and S.  

I just lowered the ISO to 200 and took the pic again without the dog.  Auto WB


----------



## viridari (Dec 7, 2008)

stsinner said:


> I just lowered the ISO to 200 and took the pic again without the dog.  Auto WB



Was the flash pointing directly at the couch?  Or bounced?


----------



## stsinner (Dec 7, 2008)

Directly at it.


----------



## viridari (Dec 7, 2008)

Just as a proof of concept I tried this with my camera.  I turned off all of the lights except for an aquarium across the room.  Just enough to allow focus.  I turned down the power on my 285HV (very bright at full power, but certainly not as bright as your SB600 can go if I turn it down to 1/4).  Dropped all the way down to ISO 100 and max flash sync speed of 1/250.  Aperture came in at f/11.






Just a bad photo of some assorted junk on top of my desk taken in the dark.

I can't speak to the white balance issues at all but your exposures are telling me that you're just not getting light onto your subject.


----------



## Chewbecca (Dec 8, 2008)

I just don't get it.
How is it you are shooting at 1/15, ISO 800 and aperture of f5.6, and you're using flash and you're STILL not getting enough light?
Crazy.


----------



## stsinner (Dec 8, 2008)

How do you look at my exif?  Not how do I look at it, but how are you doing it?  I thought that right-clicking and hitting properties would do it, but no.


----------



## viridari (Dec 8, 2008)

stsinner said:


> How do you look at my exif?  Not how do I look at it, but how are you doing it?  I thought that right-clicking and hitting properties would do it, but no.



Unless you're running Linux, my method won't do you any good.  

I save the file to disk, then from a command line I type "exif <filename>" and it dumps all of the EXIF data that it can parse.  For some reason it's not parsing ISO metadata from your Nikon but it does parse from my Canon. Weird.


----------



## andrew99 (Dec 8, 2008)

If you're using the Firefox web browser, you can install a plugin to view exif data.


----------



## manaheim (Dec 8, 2008)

I assume you've taken the lightsphere off for these?

Also, how high are your ceilings?


----------



## manaheim (Dec 8, 2008)

stsinner said:


> How do you look at my exif? Not how do I look at it, but how are you doing it? I thought that right-clicking and hitting properties would do it, but no.


 
I recommend installing a program called Opanda EXIF.  It's free and allows you to right-click any image to get info on it.


----------



## DavidSR (Dec 8, 2008)

Just curious, but the Quantaray MS1 I believe is an optical slave flash. You would need another flash to trigger it..are you by any chance using your camera flash to trigger it? Your on camera flash might be what's giving you such harsh light. Oh and shutter speed doesn't affect pictures taken with flash only the ambient light. If you are using lights in your house when you take these pictures I suggest you shoot at about 1/200 or whatever your camera syncs at to only get the flash in the picture and not have any WB inconsistencies.

I forgot to include that your flash is dependant on your aperture and ISO settings..not so much shutter speed unless you want some ambient light in there to keep your background from turning into a black hole


----------



## stsinner (Dec 8, 2008)

andrew99 said:


> If you're using the Firefox web browser, you can install a plugin to view exif data.



I am using Firefox, so I'll check for that plug-in.



manaheim said:


> I assume you've taken the lightsphere off for these?
> 
> Also, how high are your ceilings?



The Lightsphere was not mounted last night in the late-night shots of the dog and couch.  My ceilings are 7 feet and white.

Last night I was asked to duplicate the shot in P mode, but I didn't.  I had my 18-55 mounted and no lightsphere.  Well, this morning I duplicated the shot, but I did it in AUTO just to make sure that it's something that I'm doing wrong.  And it is...  So I really appreciate your guys' patience and sorting this out.  I need to find out what settings are wrong.  Here's the results with 70-300 mounted, SB600 mounted in TTL mode and Lightsphere mounted, camera in AUTO.  I think these are perfect color-wise and exposure-wise, so I don't really have any reason to leave Auto mode.  The only reason I want to learn how to shoot in Manual is because of the Quantarays/umbrella setup for doing portraits.  They don't fire at the right time in Auto due to being optically triggered.  Anyway-here's the results from this morning in Auto:


















So I don't think there's anything wrong with my camera-just my skills..


----------



## stsinner (Dec 8, 2008)

DavidSR said:


> Just curious, but the Quantaray MS1 I believe is an optical slave flash. You would need another flash to trigger it..are you by any chance using your camera flash to trigger it? Your on camera flash might be what's giving you such harsh light. Oh and shutter speed doesn't affect pictures taken with flash only the ambient light. If you are using lights in your house when you take these pictures I suggest you shoot at about 1/200 or whatever your camera syncs at to only get the flash in the picture and not have any WB inconsistencies.
> 
> I forgot to include that your flash is dependant on your aperture and ISO settings..not so much shutter speed unless you want some ambient light in there to keep your background from turning into a black hole



The way I trigger the Quantaray's is to use the SB600 pointed up and stopped all the way down as low as it will go.

One thing I have no idea about is flash sync..  I'll have to go searching for a blurb about that in layman's terms..  I did notice that when I have my flash turned on in Manual mode and scroll the wheel, I can select red-eye correction or "rear."  What does Rear do?


----------



## DavidSR (Dec 8, 2008)

stsinner said:


> The way I trigger the Quantaray's is to use the SB600 pointed up and stopped all the way down as low as it will go.


 
Do you by any chance have a picture of how your lights are positioned in relation to your children?


----------



## Dao (Dec 8, 2008)

I am just wondering, did your Nikon flash fire the pre-flash?  
The optical slaves may fire with the pre-flash.


----------



## stsinner (Dec 8, 2008)

Dao said:


> I am just wondering, did your Nikon flash fire the pre-flash?
> The optical slaves may fire with the pre-flash.



The manual says that the SB600 fires "imperceptible pre-flashes" to determine the power output required, but I think the Quantarays fired with the main flash.


----------



## NateWagner (Dec 8, 2008)

Chewbecca said:


> I just don't get it.
> How is it you are shooting at 1/15, ISO 800 and aperture of f5.6, and you're using flash and you're STILL not getting enough light?
> Crazy.



well, I don't think it's that there isn't enough light. More, I think the main problem is that he(?) is using too much ambient light, which results in the slow shutter speeds and thus the lighting being off. 

With the lighting through the umbrella I would think it would be a better idea to primarily use the flash and as little ambient light as possible. Thus you would be looking at more of a f/11-f/16 with a 250 shutter speed, and an ISO of 100. In the original posts the flash was blowing out the details because a. it was over exposed, and B. the ISO was way too high. 

If you (ststinner) could try some shots around the area I was suggesting I would be really curious how they would turn out.


----------



## stsinner (Dec 8, 2008)

Nate, I will try those settings and provide the results.  Thanks.  I'm beginning to think that the Quantaray's are simply living up to the old adage-You get what you pay for....


----------



## Dao (Dec 8, 2008)

stsinner said:


> The manual says that the SB600 fires "imperceptible pre-flashes" to determine the power output required, but I think the Quantarays fired with the main flash.




If the SB600 fires the pre flash, then it could be the problem.  

The Quantaray MS-1 will fire with the pre-flash.  And the other model (found from Amazon) QMS-D1 works better with pre-flash setup


Quote from Amazon for the QNS-D1 model:

"*S:* The QMS-D1 will be activated instantly when it detects a flash light which could be a pre-flash from the camera's built-in flash or external flash. ( The activation at this setting is exactly the same as that of the QMS-1 slave flash unit (53-166-0769)) . This slave setting is to be selected for traditional cameras or flash units that do not fire any pre-flash. *

S1:* At this setting, the QMS-D1 can detect the pre-flash light of the digital camera's built-in flash or external flash unit with single pre-flash function and delays the activation and synchronizes with the actual main flash light emitted after the pre-flash."



So you may want to deactivate the pre-flash and see if that make a difference.


----------



## DavidSR (Dec 8, 2008)

stsinner said:


> One thing I have no idea about is flash sync.. I'll have to go searching for a blurb about that in layman's terms.. I did notice that when I have my flash turned on in Manual mode and scroll the wheel, I can select red-eye correction or "rear." What does Rear do?


 
Here you go...this can explain it better than I can.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/syncspeed.htm


----------



## Dao (Dec 8, 2008)

Check out the reviews in Amazon

[ame]http://www.amazon.com/MS-1-Wireless-Flash-Booster-Slave/dp/B00009V38V[/ame]

You will find some reviewers talked about the pre-flash issue.


----------



## stsinner (Dec 8, 2008)

So, since I seem to have white balance issues constantly, is it a photographic crime to use Auto White Balance while in Manual?


----------



## viridari (Dec 8, 2008)

stsinner said:


> So, since I seem to have white balance issues constantly, is it a photographic crime to use Auto White Balance while in Manual?



Well firstly, shooting for faster shutter speeds will give more favor to the clean white light of your flash.

Secondly, shooting in RAW mode will give you the flexibility to fix white balance more easily in your computer and also compensate for shortcomings in exposure.  Doing this with a JPEG ends up losing tonal range (something you can ill afford in digital), whereas with RAW you get to preserve the quality of the image while adjusting the exposure and white balance.


----------



## stsinner (Dec 8, 2008)

viridari said:


> Well firstly, shooting for faster shutter speeds will give more favor to the clean white light of your flash.
> 
> Secondly, shooting in RAW mode will give you the flexibility to fix white balance more easily in your computer and also compensate for shortcomings in exposure.  Doing this with a JPEG ends up losing tonal range (something you can ill afford in digital), whereas with RAW you get to preserve the quality of the image while adjusting the exposure and white balance.



I'm shooting everything in RAW as of yesterday, unless I go somewhere where 274 pictures isn't enough, then I'll switch to JPEG, where I can save 3.7 thousand on my 2 gig card.

The reason you're seeing them in JPEG is because nothing recognizes .NEF, or Nikon format, so I convert them prior to uploading them to Photobucket..  I have all the RAW files, but they're >5 Meg in size.


----------



## viridari (Dec 8, 2008)

I look at it this way:  having a JPEG out of the camera is like having a print.  You can scan a print into your computer and retouch it but you've got a limited amount of image data to work with so playing with brightness, contrast, color saturation, etc is going to push values in one area while pulling them in another.

But having a RAW file is like having a negative to work with, where you have MUCH more image data to work with, far more than you can display in the final print (or on-screen image).  You can choose how to express those bits in a way that isn't necessarily lossy in any way.

So it's a good thing that you're shooting in RAW.

Next thing to do is to get the exposures nailed down more solidly.  Faster shutter speeds and lower ISO's.  This may require more light.  I'm a bit confused by what your actual light setup is.and whether or not you're being hoisted by your own petard (pre-flash triggering the optical slave before the shutter release).


----------



## stsinner (Dec 8, 2008)

I think I finally got some idea...  I was all the way up at 1/500 on shutter speed, f/18 on aperture, and I had the SB600 mounted and pointed straight up at 1/64 power.  Two umbrellas with flashes shooting through.  It's getting closer to good lighting..  My poor daughter is going to go blind from the flashes before I get good... 

Here's the setup:







And here's the results:











BTW, I put the white balance on Auto.  Please let me know what you think of these with regard to lighting and exposure.  No PP was done, but they were converted from RAW to JPEG using Nikon ViewNX. Should I go to a step slower shutter speed, or a lower aperture to brighten them up for portraits?  I'm thinking they may seem a little underexposed, but the white balance looks much better IMHO.  Thanks.


----------



## viridari (Dec 8, 2008)

These look pretty good!  What ISO were you using for this latest set?  If you're still on ISO 800, I'd work towards getting down to ISO 100 or 200 tops.  That might mean opening aperture up a bit or jacking up the flashes some.


----------



## stsinner (Dec 8, 2008)

viridari said:


> These look pretty good!  What ISO were you using for this latest set?  If you're still on ISO 800, I'd work towards getting down to ISO 100 or 200 tops.  That might mean opening aperture up a bit or jacking up the flashes some.



Well, you just exposed the problem and the one thing I didn't pay attention to...ISO was at 1600, which means they'll be noisy if I try to brighten them up...  Dang it!!  I'm going to try again..  I thought f/18 seems a little unrealistic.

Let me go try again.  Remember, I can't just the flashes up, because they have only an on/off switch due to only costing $15 each..  And the lower limit of my camera is ISO 200.  Let me go play some more..


----------



## viridari (Dec 8, 2008)

OK here is something to try.

Set your camera for ISO 200, f/8, 1/125.  Don't change any of the exposure settings on the camera after this!  Now just adjust your flash output up or down as needed, maybe move the umbrellas closer or further away, until you get a good exposure.


----------



## stsinner (Dec 8, 2008)

There we go-ISO 200, Shutter speed 1/320 and f/8.  That seems more realistic, right?











Now I need to figure out what the heck metering is, because the background we will use for portraits won't be that ugly couch, and people are always talking about what my camera is, "metering off of.."  If we use a dark or black background, it will throw everything off, right?


----------



## viridari (Dec 8, 2008)

For portraiture, I tend to meter off of the subject's face and let the rest of the image fall where it may.

But you're getting into religion now.  I think you've now got your camera dialed in to a more reasonable exposure.  I would even try to get down into ISO 100 now and set a baseline for portraiture... try for ISO 100, but 200 is acceptable in a pinch.  Go for minimum 1/125 shutter speed or faster.  Play with aperture as needed to get correct exposure and desired depth of field. Then dial lights up or down as needed to achieve those settings.

I think you'll find an ISO 100 RAW image with good flash lighting and a fast shutter speed will be a joy to work with in post processing.  Now compare this last test image you did with some of the older ones from the beginning of the thread.  Look at the full res versions in your PC.  Doesn't that look better to you?


----------



## manaheim (Dec 8, 2008)

Hm, if you're new to raw are you sure you're not just processing the RAWs incorrectly?

Also, my experience with this was fleeting... but we did have some issues where external flashes did NOT sync well wirelessly with a more modern Nikon SB600... our resulting pictures were dark.  We wound up eventually wiring everything up and things came out perfectly.

This information is PURELY anecdoctal and not worth a heck of a lot on it's own, but it may be interesting info to help support one postulate or another on what is happening.


----------



## stsinner (Dec 8, 2008)

manaheim said:


> Hm, if you're new to raw are you sure you're not just processing the RAWs incorrectly?
> 
> Also, my experience with this was fleeting... but we did have some issues where external flashes did NOT sync well wirelessly with a more modern Nikon SB600... our resulting pictures were dark.  We wound up eventually wiring everything up and things came out perfectly.
> 
> This information is PURELY anecdoctal and not worth a heck of a lot on it's own, but it may be interesting info to help support one postulate or another on what is happening.



I'm not purposely doing anything to the RAW files besides converting them to JPEG with the Nikon software, so I wouldn't think it would butcher them too badly.  You're right about the syncing, but I've found that it's only a problem in Auto for some reason.  As you see in the picture I provided of the setup, both flashes are firing.  

I have to read up on syncing and get more comfortable with it.


----------



## MelodySoul (Dec 8, 2008)

stsinner said:


> There we go-ISO 200, Shutter speed 1/320 and f/8. That seems more realistic, right?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
The first one looks really good! Her face seems a tad underexposed in the second.


----------



## stsinner (Dec 8, 2008)

viridari said:


> For portraiture, I tend to meter off of the subject's face and let the rest of the image fall where it may.
> 
> But you're getting into religion now.  I think you've now got your camera dialed in to a more reasonable exposure.  I would even try to get down into ISO 100 now and set a baseline for portraiture... try for ISO 100, but 200 is acceptable in a pinch.  Go for minimum 1/125 shutter speed or faster.  Play with aperture as needed to get correct exposure and desired depth of field. Then dial lights up or down as needed to achieve those settings.
> 
> I think you'll find an ISO 100 RAW image with good flash lighting and a fast shutter speed will be a joy to work with in post processing.  Now compare this last test image you did with some of the older ones from the beginning of the thread.  Look at the full res versions in your PC.  Doesn't that look better to you?



Lowest ISO setting on the D50 is 200.


----------



## manaheim (Dec 8, 2008)

stsinner said:


> I'm not purposely doing anything to the RAW files besides converting them to JPEG with the Nikon software, so I wouldn't think it would butcher them too badly. You're right about the syncing, but I've found that it's only a problem in Auto for some reason. As you see in the picture I provided of the setup, both flashes are firing.
> 
> I have to read up on syncing and get more comfortable with it.


 
You may want to check that- batch (or even untouched) processing of RAWs basically completely defeats the purpose of taking pictures in RAW.  You might as well take them in JPEG at that point.

Open up one of these and simple adjust the temperature and tweak the exposre and brightness a bit and see what you get.


----------



## stsinner (Dec 8, 2008)

MelodySoul said:


> The first one looks really good! Her face seems a tad underexposed in the second.



Thanks for the compliment.  Let me work on it.


----------



## MelodySoul (Dec 8, 2008)

viridari said:


> :lmao:
> 
> You don't have small children around, do you?
> 
> He's very lucky to get the images he's gotten.


 
Actually I have about a years worth of experience photographing children of all ages. There's no luck involved, it's all hard work, distraction and bribery.


----------



## Dao (Dec 8, 2008)

Now... the pictures is much better.    Should we bring out the champagne?


----------



## stsinner (Dec 8, 2008)

I played with the exposure of the first one, and now her hair looks brown...


----------



## tsaraleksi (Dec 8, 2008)

It looks like you've wound up desaturating it a little bit, which I think is what took the red out of her hair.


----------



## NateWagner (Dec 8, 2008)

yeah, that's looking much better. the flash will blow out the iso quite quickly, which is why it's important to have a 100-200 iso.


----------



## manaheim (Dec 8, 2008)

Any chance you could put the raw file up for us to play with?  I'm betting the issue is more in the raw translation than anything, but there's no way to tell without playing with it.


----------



## manaheim (Dec 8, 2008)

BTW, I think your latest attempt is getting really close!  Looks good for the most part.


----------



## stsinner (Dec 8, 2008)

How do I post the RAW?  It's over 5 Meg in size.


----------

