# flash and shutter speed override ?



## dannylightning (Oct 18, 2014)

when the camera flash is being used I cant get a shutter speed faster than 1/200,  that is the fastest the camera will let me go when the on camera flash is being used.     

for what I am trying to achieve I need a faster shutter speed and I need a flash.     my on camera flash is turned down all the way and it needs to trigger the speed light to flash.

  I found a cool video where you set your shutter speed to a point where you take a pic and you get a pure black image.    than you use a speed light on the object you want to shoot  and you get a pic of that image and a pure black background even in day light.     

I wanted to try that out but I need a shutter speed to be much faster but the camera will not let me,  any way to change that so it will let me have a faster shutter speed when a flash is being used.


----------



## CameraClicker (Oct 18, 2014)

In Canon speak, High Speed Synch, is what you are looking for.  I don't know the Nikon name.  Sync speed is the fastest shutter speed at which the curtains are fully open.  After that, High Speed Sync can fire the flash multiple times to light the scene while the curtains are exposing different areas of the sensor.

Useful for fill, not useful for stopping motion.  You get blur due to the multiple flash firing.  To fire multiple times, the flash does not fire at maximum power.

Not all flash and camera bodies support High Speed Sync.


----------



## dannylightning (Oct 18, 2014)

Thanks.   I just tried to look it up but I found a different one than I originally saw,  its saying to use a small aperture if you have a sink speed around 1/250  

so I guess my sink speed wont go past 1/200   I was hoping there was some kind of setting where I could over ride that.   but maybe I can make it work with a smaller aperture.    if its nice out tomorrow Ill probably give it a try.   indoors there is probably to much stuff for the flash to bounce off of for it to work.


----------



## beachrat (Oct 18, 2014)

Nikon calls it "FP Sync",but not all bodies or flashes support it and I'm pretty sure the D5300 doesn't.
If you go into the menus flash sync speed (e1 I think),"Auto FP" will be an option if the camera supports it.
I use lights a lot,and it's one of the reason I kept my D70 and use it often. It syncs at any speed with any strobe which is a really cool feature.


----------



## snowbear (Oct 18, 2014)

Some cameras have different synch speed - the D40 is 1/400; older film bodies might only be 1/60.
If you are using something like a wall as a background, move the subject away from it.


----------



## KmH (Oct 18, 2014)

1/200 is your camera's flash x-sync speed.
That is the fastest shutter speed that still has both shutter curtains open during an exposure.
At faster shutter speeds one or both shutter curtains form a slit that blocks part of the image sensor and a flash unit has to fire several times during the exposure .
The faster the shutter speed, the narrower the slit, and the more times during the exposure the flash unit has to fire.
Nikon calls that flash unit mode *Auto-FP flash sync*. (FP= focal plane).
None of the D3XXX or D5XXX series have Auto-FP sync and the D5300 reference manual does not have an *Index* to aid looking things up in the manual.
Nikons SB-600 and up are Auto-FP sync capable.

A speedlight takes at least 2 seconds to recycle from a full power flash so in Auto-FP flash sync mode the flash unit has to fire at well less than full power for each of those flashes.
The more times the flash has to fire the less power each flash has to be because the flash unit has no time to recycle back to full power.

There is more.
The duration of a full power flash used at 1/200 is about 1/1000 of a second so the flash of light can substitute for the motion stopping function of shutter speed, and the shorter flash duration accommodates Auito-FP sync's short flash duration needed to fire several times during an exposure.
At less than full power the duration of the flash of light gets even shorter.
The situation where you use shutter speed to make the background dark or black is called 'dragging the shutter'.

Page H-17 of the Nikon SB-700 flash unit's user manual shows
Flash Duration (approx.):
1/1042 sec. at M1/1 (full) output
1/1136 sec. at M1/2 output
1/2857 sec. at M1/4 output
1/5714 sec. at M1/8 output
1/10000 sec. at M1/16 output
1/18182 sec. at M1/32 output
1/25000 sec. at M1/64 output
1/40000 sec. at M1/128 output


----------



## dannylightning (Oct 19, 2014)

thanks for all the good info...


----------



## WayneF (Oct 19, 2014)

dannylightning said:


> when the camera flash is being used I cant get a shutter speed faster than 1/200,  that is the fastest the camera will let me go when the on camera flash is being used.
> 
> for what I am trying to achieve I need a faster shutter speed and I need a flash.     my on camera flash is turned down all the way and it needs to trigger the speed light to flash.
> 
> ...




Your maximum sync speed is 1/200 second.  That is because it is a focal plane shutter, and it is not fully open at any faster shutter speed.  Just how it is, all focal plane shutters are in this same ballpark, maybe 1/180 second or a few 1/250 second, but nothing dramatically different.   Four Flash Photography Basics we must know - Maximum Shutter Sync Speed

Higher end Nikon models (D300 and D7000 and up) have Auto FP mode, which is HSS flash, and with a compatible HSS flash, they can use any fast shutter speed with flash. Of course, it is not actually flash, it is continuous HSS mode, something radically different with obvious downsides - It is certainly no longer speedlight..

But... speedlights are called speedlight because at lower power levels, they can be tremendously fast, much faster than any shutter speed.  Underexpose the ambient at least two stops, and be near enough so that low flash power works  (say 1/16 power or less), and it will stop your motion.  This is the way that high speed flash photography is done.

*Re: your black background*.   Should not be much problem (except in sunight).   1/200 second at stopped down aperture like say f/8, and at low ISO, will make most any indoor scene black.  Try this shot without flash to see the black, it will be there.  This will require camera mode M (manual) to set those settings, but the TTL flash is still fully automatic flash in any camera mode.

Saying again,  1/200 second f/8 at ISO 100 will be black indoors, may even be overkill.  It is all you need for this goal (unless the flash lights the background you don't want to see - try a flash angle that does not light the background).

So...just  turn Auto ISO off.      The goal of Auto ISO is that it will not be black.


----------



## dannylightning (Oct 31, 2014)

no luck...    just did some test with my mom,    even went up to around f/15 and no luck..     was not worried about a good looking photo or proper flash placement on the subject,  I was worried about the background being black and it does not seem to work.   the background would not go black.    this is a pretty big room but maybe not big enough.

the flash seems to have a 180o flash radius so,  its hard to not illuminate the background or so it seems.


----------



## tirediron (Oct 31, 2014)

1.  Start by selecting the correct aperture (and base ISO).  Select an aperture which, when you shoot with ambient light at sync speed, will produce a fully black background.

2.  Move your lights in closer to the model and lower their output accordingly.  Remember the inverse square law.  Just 'for instance' in the above image, if it were me shooting, my lights would likely be 2-3' from the subject.

3.  Feather/flag your lights, that is, do not point them directly at the background, but to one side or the other and if necessary add flags to the backgroudn side of the light to minimize spill.


----------



## dannylightning (Oct 31, 2014)

I did number 1,  got a completely black image without the flash being on.

number 2   I dont know that law,  ill look it up..      the flash was pointed at her and not pointed at the background.    this was only with one speed light,  I think I would like to get a second one If I can get the hang of using these things,    

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

seems like the speedlight placement is very critical to get proper lighting on the person once you get them closer to the person.

I just gave it another try and I got the background to almost black.  but if she took one step forward or one step back it really change the way the light hit her face to the point of being descent to not really usable. 

maybe speed lights are not that idea for this kind of thing.   I did see people were using a umbrella and bouncing the speed light off of the inside of the umbrella when doing this.

here is a photo showing what happened when she took one step back. if she had stepped forward it might have been better.  who knows,  seems like a big pain with these speed lights,   than again I dont know what I am doing either lol


----------



## tirediron (Oct 31, 2014)

Speedlights work just fine for this sort of work, you just need to get it 'dialed in'.  You're right, light placement is absolutely critical and moving the light or the subject just a few inches can make a big difference.  The colour of your background will have some effect as well; naturally it's MUCH easier to acheive this on a black wall then it is on a white.

This image is lit with a single speedlight in a normally illumanted living-room.  The subject is sitting in a brown, leather arm-chair about 4' in front of a light green wall.  The speedlight is in a 20" gridded beauty dish above and image left, about 3' from the subject.  Absolutely no processing was applied to the background:


----------



## Braineack (Oct 31, 2014)

I took this picture at 1/4000sec, f/4, and iso 160.  Without the flash it would have been a completely black picture.






turn flash to manual and put it at full power.

My information about it here: Is there a way to break the sync speed? | Photography Forum


But this is not what you really need to solve your delimma.  Understanding the reverse square law is what you need.

move the flash closer to the subject. and subject further from bg.

While I changed my fill light, I took these two shots from the same exact spot.




New Backdrop Selfie by The Braineack, on Flickr




New Backdrop Selfie by The Braineack, on Flickr


The only real difference here was in the second I added a light to light-up the background.   They have identical exposure settings and the main key light is at the exact same power between them (1/160s, f/11, iso160). I'm only standing about 3-4' from the bg, im only using enough light to light myself up and nothing else.


----------



## WayneF (Oct 31, 2014)

dannylightning said:


> I did number 1,  got a completely black image without the flash being on.
> 
> number 2   I dont know the law at all,  ill look it up..      the flash was pointed at her and not pointed at the background.    this was only with one speed light but I think I would like to get a second one,    I could try to move the flash closer to her.
> 
> ...




The low ISO and 1/200 second shutter will eliminate your room ambient light (will be black without the flash).  And no ambient issue is visible.

Your problem now is the inverse square law.  Four Flash Photography Basics we must know - Inverse Square Law

This just means that the flash illumination falls off FAST with distance from the flash.   NOT LIKE SUNLIGHT, which is same at the distant mountain.

So it means you put the flash closer to the subject, to make the background farther.

Your example looks like flash is about 6 feet from subject, and maybe 12 feet from far wall at right.

So that is 2x distance to the wall, so the flash will be down 2 stops.  2 stops is dark, but not black however.

If the subject moved closer to flash, so flash were say 3 feet from subject, and subject 9 feet from wall (flash still 12 feet from wall), that is 4x, and down 4 stops, much darker wall.

3 feet is too close for the camera (perspective), so flash has to come off of the camera.  But 3 feet is just about right for a large white reflected umbrella.

But this would be easier with a dark background, or a more distant background in larger room.  Or outdoors at night (distant black background).


----------



## dannylightning (Oct 31, 2014)

1/200 is the fastest shutter speed I can get on my camera when using a flash...     I had my ISO at 100 and I was round f/13 or so    If I made the aperture any wider, no more black background.

If I got some reflective umbrellas would that help.  I think those are pretty inexpensive.    I am kind of liking the whole speed light Idea since they are small, lightweight and highly portable.  I was thinking of getting some studio strobes but If I can make it work with these that woud be great.  the speedlight I have was only 50 bucks and works quite well so I would not mind buying another one


yes the speed light was in the range of distance Wayne,    I moved them on about 2 feet from the subject on the second set of pics which seemed to work better for getting a black background but the subject was not lit as well so I would really need to move her around and snap pics till it lit her up well which is what really seems like a pain.    the flash from my camera was not bright enough to light the subject,   just bright enough to trigger the speed light.   since my camera was pointed directly at the background I did not want that to effect the photo


----------



## tirediron (Oct 31, 2014)

Shutter speed has virtually no effect on the exposure; 1/200 is perfectly adequate.  Umbrellas will help you soften the light, but they won't have a significant effect on the problem you're having at the moment.  Make sure you flag the background side of your lights with black construction paper or something similar to prevent spill.


----------



## dannylightning (Oct 31, 2014)

Ok,  flagging will be the next thing I try,    I will read those links you guys sent me later tonight or tomorrow,    got off work at 8am and I probably wont go to bed till late tonight so It might be best to read them after I get some sleep.


----------



## dannylightning (Oct 31, 2014)

flagging did not seem to help,  and I do need to be around f/13 f/14  before the background gets to the point of almost being pure black.  I am not getting good lighting on the subject unless I turn the flash brighter and than no more black background,   I guess I am going to need to read that stuff or I probably wont have any luck doing this indoors.

seems like constant light might be allot easier to work with.  at least I could see how the subject was lit before I took the shot.


----------



## Braineack (Oct 31, 2014)

constant light is a* lot harder* to work with; flash is *much* easier once you understand it.

getting a black background is realitively easy.

Even using an umbrella (which spreads light all over the place) with a single speedlight, I can keep the background nearly pitch black:




Single Light Selfie by The Braineack, on Flickr

I was standing a bit too close to the BG and pure black here it wasn't really my goal.

*BUT this was at f/5.6.*  The flash was metered to f/5.6 at my face, and since the light falls off quickly even when spread around through an umbrella, it doesn't really light up the background.

you can see in this shot some of the blue background is coming through where it's closer to the light, but towards the far frame it's still black.

again, read up on the inverse square law.

If you need f/13-f/14 to get to black, then your flash is too powerful.  If you keep reducing the aperture, then you'll keep increasing the flash power because that has a direct effect on the exposure of the flash.

you need to lower the power of your flash and move it closer to the subject.

In that shot you posted of your mom, the flash was about 3x further away then I'd start with.

this is a pretty decent video on the subject:


----------



## Scatterbrained (Oct 31, 2014)

First: dial in the exposure without the speedlight.  At iso 100 you should be able to completely kill the ambient light in the room with a 1/200th shutter speed using just about any reasonable aperture.    After you've got that dialed it's time to set the light up.  It needs to be very close to the subject, and you need to control spill.  If the flash is off the camera chances are the head will default to a relatively wide zoom setting (with Canon that would be 24mm).  You can use the zoom function to help narrow the beam of light for some spill control.   Flagging should work as well but you need to know where to put the flags.  You can take a wider shot and look for hotspots showing up on walls and ceilings, then place black cards around the flash to block that light.


----------



## Scatterbrained (Oct 31, 2014)

Braineack said:


> constant light is a lot harder to work with; flash is *much* easier once you understand it.
> 
> getting a black background is realitively easy.
> 
> ...


Constant light is not harder to work with.  There is a reason studio lights have modeling bulbs. . .it's to provide a constant light so you can see what you are doing.   Light modifiers and light ratios are what matter.  You can do it with constant light or flash so long as you know how light works.


----------



## dannylightning (Oct 31, 2014)

I am not sure the flash is too powerful,   when I have it down around 1/128 power it barley lights the subject yet the background is still not completely black. 

there is also a Ev setting that will go from -7, -3  0  +3 +7     at 1/128th it will not let me go into the negative numbers on the EV settings,      

there is also a ISO setting on the flash but when its off camera it always goes to 100 ISO and that will only change when its on the camera.

the flash is a neewere VK750 II and it probably came with the worst instruction manual I have ever seen.

now there is a zoom setting on the flash  it goes from 14mm all the way to around 180mm    I have no idea what to do with that.  I had it at 14mm and than tried 35mm  and got about the same results.


----------



## Braineack (Oct 31, 2014)

Scatterbrained said:


> Constant light is not harder to work with.  There is a reason studio lights have modeling bulbs. . .it's to provide a constant light so you can see what you are doing.   Light modifiers and light ratios are what matter.  You can do it with constant light or flash so long as you know how light works.



try exposing to your modeling bulbs and see how that 0.5sec exposure works out for you--without a tripod and a moving subject.


----------



## dannylightning (Oct 31, 2014)

this will show you how much power the flash has when turned all the way down,  yet I am still having issues.

this is 1/200  f/8 and iso 100    flash power is set to 1/128


----------



## Braineack (Oct 31, 2014)

hey a black background!


----------



## WayneF (Oct 31, 2014)

dannylightning said:


> yes the speed light was in the range of distance Wayne,    I moved them on about 2 feet from the subject on the second set of pics which seemed to work better for getting a black background but the subject was not lit as well so I would really need to move her around and snap pics till it lit her up well which is what really seems like a pain.    the flash from my camera was not bright enough to light the subject,   just bright enough to trigger the speed light.   since my camera was pointed directly at the background I did not want that to effect the photo



The little flash tube is just a point source.  If at 3 feet, it will down one stop 3 feet from center (45 degree angle to that edge).  And of course, any shadows (noses and skin pores, etc) are quite dark and harsh from the small main light.

An umbrella would help to illuminate the whole subject area...  The idea of an umbrella is that it be near the same size as its distance to the subject.  A 3 foot umbrella fabric at 3 feet illuminates an area at least that large, and will be VERY soft light there. It is what you want for portraits.

The camera flash as a trigger can also be set a little brighter, to intentionally provide a weaker frontal fill light.  It should be 1 or 1.5 stops weaker at the subject than the main light.  You want the main light to be high and wide of the subject, creating intentional darker tonal gradients on the cheeks and such.   Then a bit of frontal fill light makes them be not quite as dark.


----------



## dannylightning (Oct 31, 2014)

still not completely black,   got out the remote control and put the flash in that spot and I stood about 3 feet in front of the flash, I am not lit well and I can still see stuff in the background



than I dropped my flash and it would not turn on, I  had to bend the battery prongs back so the battery's would make good contact again,  but I think I fixed it,  it turns on now    I forgot to screw the flash down on the tripod mount so when I moved the tripod down it went.


----------



## Scatterbrained (Oct 31, 2014)

Braineack said:


> Scatterbrained said:
> 
> 
> > Constant light is not harder to work with.  There is a reason studio lights have modeling bulbs. . .it's to provide a constant light so you can see what you are doing.   Light modifiers and light ratios are what matter.  You can do it with constant light or flash so long as you know how light works.
> ...


If you're shooting with constant lights I'd hope you'd be using something stronger than a modeling light.    Beyond that, there are quite a few portrait shooters out there who shoot with hot lights.    It's all about knowing your light.  Right now the OP is still trying to figure that part out.


----------



## dannylightning (Oct 31, 2014)

I have watched quite a few  constant light vs strobe videos and or websites that talked about it.     constant lightning kind of seems like the way to go from what I have seen.   looks like allot of photographers are going back to constant lighting these days and most of them say they are allot easier to work with.   allot of them seemed to think it also gave you a more natural look over strobes or speed lights and when looking at the photos they had up for comparison I actually think I liked the way most of the constant lighting photos looked.

you can definitely do more with strobes or speed lights though but if your just looking at getting nice standard shots constant is looking pretty good.  of course I have no clue what I am doing and so far its seems like a huge pain using these things,  well at least if you want a all black background when you really have a white background to work with.


----------



## curtyoungblood (Oct 31, 2014)

Why don't you move all that stuff that's in the background?


----------



## tirediron (Oct 31, 2014)

dannylightning said:


> I have watched quite a few  constant light vs strobe videos and or websites that talked about it.     constant lightning kind of seems like the way to go from what I have seen.   looks like allot of photographers are going back to constant lighting these days and most of them say they are allot easier to work with.   allot of them seemed to think it also gave you a more natural look over strobes or speed lights and when looking at the photos they had up for comparison I actually think I liked the way most of the constant lighting photos looked.
> 
> you can definitely do more with strobes or speed lights though but if your just looking at getting nice standard shots constant is looking pretty good.  of course I have no clue what I am doing and so far its seems like a huge pain using these things,  well at least if you want a all black background when you really have a white background to work with.


Rubbish!  Light is light.  The light coming from a 1200 w/s strobe is NO different (other than colour temperature) that from a 60 watt incandescent bulb.  The reason that people see a difference and that they decry the use of strobed light is because strobes (even small speedlights) are many orders of magnitude more powerful than almost any constant light source, and therefore when not controlled properly, specular highlights are much more apparent. 

Strobed light does indeed have a slightly steeper initial learning curve, but once you get over that hump, you have vastly more flexibility.  As for consistancy, it's not a problem.  Setting up the same light, the same distance from the subject at the same output will yeild the same results.  I could offer you images shot in many locations which all have a consistant look and feel.

I strongly recommned working more on learning about the use of strobed light.  It may seem challenging at first, but one of the things I do regularily is teach lighting workshops, where I take people who know virtually nothing about flash and teach them how to produce nice, off-camera portraits in less than four hours.  It will take a little practice, but stick with it, it's worth it!


----------



## dannylightning (Oct 31, 2014)

Well I am not sure my mom would appreciate if I came over and rearranged her stuff


----------



## tirediron (Oct 31, 2014)

dannylightning said:


> Well I am not sure my mom would appreciate if I came over and rearranged her stuff


Don't ask, just do!    Always easier to beg forgiveness than to ask permission!


----------



## dannylightning (Oct 31, 2014)

there is a big heavy table with her pet birds in their cages on it.

Ill play with this speed light for a while and see how it goes, its seems fine for general shooting,  Ill read about hat stuff in the morning and hopefully that will help me figure it out a little better.

I mean I got the background pretty black but it looks like some people can get it as black as black can be yet have a nicely exposed subject.   that is basically what I am wanting to achieve here


----------



## dannylightning (Nov 1, 2014)

Ok  I read up on that inverse square law,   I kind of already knew that.   basically the way i take it is    keep the lights and the subject away from the background as much as you can if you do not want a illuminated background.    that is why I had the flash roughly in the center of the room and as far away from ever wall as I could get.

maybe I was expecting too much wen trying to get a completely black background when indoors with all white walls and ceiling.


----------



## wfooshee (Nov 1, 2014)

Flash close to subject is more important than flash being far from wall. Maximize the difference to minimize the background light. And distance to a wall behind the flash is mostly irrelevant. The wall doesn't because a reflector, because no light from the flash is going that way, except for being reflected off of your subject.

Raising the flash and aiming down might help, but not to the point of putting the eyes in shadow.


----------



## dannylightning (Nov 2, 2014)

I was thinking that having the flash higher might help but all I have is a couple of old tripods that don't go very high.    I need to get some stands and a descent backdrop one of these days,   I would imagine with a black backdrop it would be much easier.


----------



## Scatterbrained (Nov 2, 2014)

dannylightning said:


> I was thinking that having the flash higher might help but all I have is a couple of old tripods that don't go very high.    I need to get some stands and a descent backdrop one of these days,   I would imagine with a black backdrop it would be much easier.


The solution here is to have your subject sit down.


----------



## dannylightning (Nov 2, 2014)

Scatterbrained said:


> dannylightning said:
> 
> 
> > I
> ...



well, that just might work.   I would like to be able to get full body shots too but for now I think playing with the light source and stuff like that is what I need to work on.   Ill have to try that.


----------



## Scatterbrained (Nov 2, 2014)

You're not going to get full body shots in such a small space with such a small light.  To get the spread for a full body shot the light needs to be too far away to get the effect you're aiming for.


----------



## dannylightning (Nov 2, 2014)

If it got a umbrella or soft box for the speed lights I was thinking it might work.    I ordered a second speedlight since there only 50 bucks and  I think Ill get some inexpensive umbrellas to play with.

I would also like to get a constant light set to play around with for photography and/or video,   eventually Ill probably move up to some studio strobes if I get good with the speed lights. 

At this point its all about trying different things and seeing what I like best but I probably wont be buying any thing else for a while so Ill have some time  to play with the speed lights and get the hang of those before I get anything else.  I want to get good with one thin before I move on to the next.

I think next weekend Ill have someone come over for a photo shoot and see what I can do with the speed lights,   I have a green screen backdrop that I can hang up in the basement which should be good enough for now..


----------



## tirediron (Nov 2, 2014)

dannylightning said:


> well, that just might work.   I would like to be able to get full body shots too but for now I think playing with the light source and stuff like that is what I need to work on.   Ill have to try that.


Full body shots are highly over-rated!  Unless you're doing fashion work or something else where the legs are important, leave 'em out.  They're the most un-interesting part of the body.


----------



## tirediron (Nov 2, 2014)

dannylightning said:


> ... I have a green screen backdrop that I can hang up in the basement which should be good enough for now..


Just go to any large fabric store, chances are you can get 2-3 yards of dark grey/black fabric out of the remanents bin for a couple of dollars.


----------



## dannylightning (Nov 2, 2014)

I should that or someone recommended getting blankets to use which seems like a descent Idea too.    seems like cloth would wrinkle more than a blanket and if you can still see the background than less wrinkles would probably be a good thing.    as of so far I have not been able to get to the point where you cant see the background.

how ever in the basement here is more open space and no white walls for the light to bounce off of


----------



## dannylightning (Nov 6, 2014)

well I am still having a hard time with this,   I went out and got a black back drop,   just a black bed sheet and hung it up in my basement,     got my second speed light  and no one wanted to model for me so i got my mom again and practiced on my punching dummy before I got her to model for me.

even at 1/200  f/16  and 100 ISO I could still see the black backdrop and the wrinkles in it and all of that,     all I had to do was make a few small adjustments in light room and the background was pitch black.

I had the lights on 1/32 power,   any less and the subject was not lit well.    the subject was probably about 4 or 5 feet away from the backdrop and the speed lights were about 2 feet away from her, they were placed beside her and slightly in front of her.   this Is a link to the thread I made showing the photos of my mom after I processed them in lightroom..  first real attempt at a photo shoot. C&C please. | Photography Forum

but I guess its just something I need to play around with..


----------



## Village Idiot (Nov 30, 2014)

You should really invest in a book like Lifght Science & Magic. It's like you're trying to cook a meal without knowing how to use the tools. 

The inverse square law applies to everything the light touches and not just your background. It applies to the subject, the tables and chairs in the room, etc... How close any of these objects are to the light source determines the exposure of the light on them. 

Try the lighting 101 section on strobist.com to get yourself started with some good free reading.


----------

