# I don't get it...



## paigew (Mar 7, 2014)

Why do my photos come out clear with flash one second, then blurrythe next? Am I not letting the flash charge enough between shots? (speedlight/bounced)

f2 1/100 iso800
first shot


2nd


3rd..still blurry


4th...clear again


----------



## ronlane (Mar 7, 2014)

How long are you waiting between shots? I'm not sure what would cause this, but I am interested in learning. Thanks for sharing.


----------



## paigew (Mar 7, 2014)

these were taken seconds apart...the capture time is actually the same, but the top photo was first, then after the second I have one more (less) blurry photo then another crystal clear one. Maybe I shoot to fast? But the flash is firing so ....


----------



## jaomul (Mar 7, 2014)

That's a lot of blur for 1/100 sec. The second one looks more like a double exposure. Sorry I know that is of no help.


----------



## ronlane (Mar 7, 2014)

paigew said:


> these were taken seconds apart...the capture time is actually the same, but the top photo was first, then after the second I have one more (less) blurry photo then another crystal clear one. Maybe I shoot to fast? But the flash is firing so ....



Then it is possible that the flash didn't recycle enough. When I've done this, my flash doesn't seem to go off. Resulting in a perfectly exposed BLACK photo


----------



## paigew (Mar 7, 2014)

ronlane said:


> paigew said:
> 
> 
> > these were taken seconds apart...the capture time is actually the same, but the top photo was first, then after the second I have one more (less) blurry photo then another crystal clear one. Maybe I shoot to fast? But the flash is firing so ....
> ...


that is what I was thinking but the flash still fired so I wasn't sure. And it is exposed the same...


----------



## ronlane (Mar 7, 2014)

Hopefully someone in the know will stop by with an answer shortly.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 7, 2014)

Judging by how bright and well-exposed the background is, I think the exposure settings, f/2.5 At 1/100 second at ISO 800 is pretty close to the needed ambient exposure, and the flash is basically acting as a secondary light source.  She is moving, as we can see by the ghost image on her right arm (camera left arm). At 1/100 second and f/2.5 at that ISO level, the daylight and the flash are BOTH the light source. 

If the f/stop were made smaller, like say f/8, then the ambient would be below the flash value. At that exposure (f/2.5 + 800 ISO + 1/100 second worth of daylight) you are combining a MAINLY daylight exposure, along with a small squirt of flash that is creating a secondary or "ghost" image of her. THis is almost the perfect balance for some unusual creative effects, but the thing that's annoying is that you're not after that effect. 

If you were to have exposed about four EV LESS ambient light, then this would become a flash-as-main light shot; what this is is basically, an ambient light exposure with a tiny bit of flash fill.


----------



## tirediron (Mar 7, 2014)

Do you by any chance have rear curtain sync enabled on your camera?


----------



## paigew (Mar 7, 2014)

Derrel said:


> Judging by how bright and well-exposed the background is, I think the exposure settings, f/2.5 At 1/100 second at ISO 800 is pretty close to the needed ambient exposure, and the flash is basically acting as a secondary light source.  She is moving, as we can see by the ghost image on her right arm (camera left arm). At 1/100 second and f/2.5 at that ISO level, the daylight and the flash are BOTH the light source.
> 
> If the f/stop were made smaller, like say f/8, then the ambient would be below the flash value. At that exposure (f/2.5 + 800 ISO + 1/100 second worth of daylight) you are combining a MAINLY daylight exposure, along with a small squirt of flash that is creating a secondary or "ghost" image of her. THis is almost the perfect balance for some unusual creative effects, but the thing that's annoying is that you're not after that effect.
> 
> If you were to have exposed about four EV LESS ambient light, then this would become a flash-as-main light shot; what this is is basically, an ambient light exposure with a tiny bit of flash fill.


Okay so are you saying that the flash didn't fire correctly (not enough time to recharge) but since it was only a little fill flash it was still exposed (just blurry from low ss).?



tirediron said:


> Do you by any chance have rear curtain sync enabled on your camera?


No I just checked and I am pretty sure I do not have that enabled.


Whats weird is you can SEE the catchlights from the flash in the 2nd blurry shot so I know it fired.....right?


----------



## tirediron (Mar 7, 2014)

paigew said:


> ...Whats weird is you can SEE the catchlights from the flash in the 2nd blurry shot so I know it fired.....right?



Potentially; it's also possible that there's something in the room (window, mirror, shiny appliance) that's causing the catchlight, but the EXIF data seems to indicate the flash was firing; Derrel's analysis of the exposure is spot-on, so that does make sense.  That is, the flash fired and created the catchlight, but didn't really contribute anything to the overall exposure.  What doesn't really make sense to me is the appearance of the ghosting; it looks very much like a rear-curtain sync type of effect.


----------



## paigew (Mar 7, 2014)

tirediron said:


> paigew said:
> 
> 
> > ...Whats weird is you can SEE the catchlights from the flash in the 2nd blurry shot so I know it fired.....right?
> ...



Okay yes that makes sense. I don't think the rear curtain was enabled. I have never messed with that at all before and it wasn't selected when I went to check. So I guess I am wondering how I prevent this? I supposes allow less ambient :*(


----------



## Overread (Mar 7, 2014)

I'd agree with Derrels assessment. 

As for minimizing this happening you've two basic options;

1) Increase the shutter speed to account for motion; this will require you to use a wider aperture (less depth of field) and/or a higher ISO (more noise - though note correctly exposed you will have less noise than if you underexpose at a lower ISO and then bump up the brightness in editing). 
This is basically running off the ambient light and having the flash for fill lighting.

2) Shift to flash dominated lighting; this generally means shifting into manual mode (auto and semi-auto can't do it that well because they can only read the ambient and can't factor in for the flash contribution to the scene). So using a smaller aperture/lower ISO and letting the flash light increase so that its the only contributing light source to the exposure (ergo if you took the shot with the same settings without flash you'd get a black shot - fully underexposed). 
Note you need to have flash fully dominant otherwise you'll get a ghosting where a darker, but exposed blurry area on any movement is recorded and shown on the shot. 


If you want to avoid the "deer headlights" effect of flash you need to diffuse it - a common way indoors if you have a flash with an adjustable head is to bounce the light off the walls; it reflects around the room and makes the walls into the light source for the subject. Another option is softboxes, umbrellas and other lighting modifications - although these tend to be more for stand light sources (though you can get smaller softboxes for speedlite flash units - though for a major light source in a scene like this bouncing would be best)


----------



## tirediron (Mar 7, 2014)

paigew said:


> So I guess I am wondering how I prevent this? I supposes allow less ambient :*(


Easiest way would be to slip a couple of Valium in the children's lunch-time milk before the shoot so they don't move as much, but failing that, yeah, you could expose for strobed light only!


----------



## paigew (Mar 7, 2014)

Thanks all! That's kinda what I figured. It is weird though that I got clear shots at all because she WAS moving (slightly) the whole time.


----------



## OrionsByte (Mar 7, 2014)

Just one thing to add to what smarter minds than me have already mentioned - it looks like the background has got a touch of motion blur to it in the 2nd and 3rd shots as well (in addition to being intentionally out of focus due to depth of field), so I'm gonna say there is an element of camera shake involved here as well.


----------



## paigew (Mar 7, 2014)

OrionsByte said:


> Just one thing to add to what smarter minds than me have already mentioned - it looks like the background has got a touch of motion blur to it in the 2nd and 3rd shots as well (in addition to being intentionally out of focus due to depth of field), so I'm gonna say there is an element of camera shake involved here as well.




You know I bet that is it.... I am not a very still shooter, I tend to chase around my subjects :blushing:


----------



## robbins.photo (Mar 7, 2014)

Ok, well I think everybody overlooked the obvious on this one.  Demonic possesion.  Oh ya, sweet and innocent and adorable one second, blurred out of control engine of death the next.  

Hmm.. then again that could just be my kids.. lol


----------



## Derrel (Mar 7, 2014)

paigew said:
			
		

> Whats weird is you can SEE the catchlights from the flash in the 2nd blurry shot so I know it fired.....right?



Yes, the flash was firing. A few posts up jaomul remarked that, "It looks like a mutliple exposure"? That's because it **is** a multiple exposure, in a manner of speaking.

This image fault is called ghosting; look at the second image large; see the faint "ghosting"  on her green shirt sleeve and below her elbow? In shot #2, look at her left hand; the red writing is visible "through" her left hand, which was moving during the ambient exposure, but was frozen by the flash.

At 800, 100>200>400>800...you have in effect, made the flash "*eight times more powerful*" than it is at ISO 100.


----------



## Gavjenks (Mar 7, 2014)

tirediron said:


> paigew said:
> 
> 
> > So I guess I am wondering how I prevent this? I supposes allow less ambient :*(
> ...


No just use this


----------



## KmH (Mar 7, 2014)

I highly recommend setting rear/second curtain sync for shooting animate/moving subjects.


----------



## Overread (Mar 7, 2014)

KmH how does that work? 

If you've got a duel exposure of flash and ambient then any motion will blur no matter if the flash fires first or second. I guess a second firing might over-right some of the blur with the flash component, but I'd still expect the lines to be blurred.


----------



## paigew (Mar 7, 2014)

Overread said:


> KmH how does that work?
> 
> If you've got a duel exposure of flash and ambient then any motion will blur no matter if the flash fires first or second. I guess a second firing might over-right some of the blur with the flash component, but I'd still expect the lines to be blurred.


I'm interested to hear more as well.


----------



## 480sparky (Mar 7, 2014)

EXIF data will tell if not only the flash fired, but whether any return light was detected.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 7, 2014)

paigew said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> > KmH how does that work?
> ...



In the situation in this post, there needed to be an exposure correction. Using a setting like say, ISO 100 at 1/200 second at f/5.6 to f/8 would have dropped the ambient light wayyyyyy down, and the shots would have been exposed by the flash.

If you have a higher-end flash meter, you can use it to calculate the PRECISE percentage of flash and the precise amount of flash exposure.

Lacking a flash meter, the easiest thing to do is to shoot a test frame with the flash turned OFF, and look for a very dark, weak exposure; that is what you want on the foreground subject, the child. Of course, the windows in this setting would be fairly bright, since they are actual sources of light.

Alternately, you could also dial the flash wayyyyyyyy down, about three stops below the ambient exposure, so the flash is just enough to fill in the shadows a little bit.

In the example shots, there "are no shadows", because the flash is so powerful that all the shadows are nuked.

Here's the basic issue Sekonic Support FAQs: Balancing flash with daylight/fill flash

Here's a page that has links to several Sekonic-sponsored articles on how to avoid this type of problem:
Fill-Flash Tutorial

Again--this is a great example of why owning a flash-capable light meter can avoid disasters.


----------



## Overread (Mar 7, 2014)

But Derrel that doesn't explain why one should use rear-curtain sync with moving subject and flash dominate lighting as it will still blur. 


Although thinking on it I guess KmH means that at least the blur will lead into the sharp content so it seems more deliberate; but it would have to be motion with a driving direction and  a clear single direction of motion rather than, for example, a shake.


----------



## astroNikon (Mar 7, 2014)

Derrel / John -  Are the older Minolta IV / V  flash capable light meters?

I was going to get one because, well .. WTH 'ya know.  I've been using the iphone light meter software but have been thinking of getting one to understand more.

I try to stay above 1/200 so this thread was very interesting to read.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Mar 7, 2014)

Rear curtain flash does not accomplish anything other than reversing the placement of the blurred shadow.  If the kid is just moving left and right, it will just be the same shot rear curtain or not.  If the kid is running one direction, then yes I agree that rear curtain will improve the photo because the shadow is behind the kid instead of in front of the kid.

derrel's assessment is spot on.


----------



## pgriz (Mar 7, 2014)

I get that problem when I shoot in Av mode with flash - the camera exposes for the ambient light, regardless of the flash firing.  If my flash didn't charge enough to fire, the camera will still take the shot, but without the flash it will adjust the shutter speed to whatever it thinks is needed for the amount of ambient, and I do get blur.  I find that shooting in manual + ETTL gives me better control of the exposure, with the manual exposure being whatever I decide is appropriate for ambient, and the flash computing its power level through the pre-flash.


----------



## paigew (Mar 7, 2014)

Okay am I not getting something here?...why are the first and fourth photos totally sharp. At the same settings, same subjects not even a second apart. 

I personally like the fact that there is very little flash. I exposed for the ambient and then added flash (ttl). I bounced the flash off my left shoulder to fill (there was a bit of light on her left side from a window). With ambient only the iso would have had to have been 6400, probably more. Maybe I am going about things wrong....

Oh I always shoot Manual mode on my camera


----------



## Derrel (Mar 7, 2014)

paigew said:


> Why do my photos come out clear with flash one second, then blurrythe next? Am I not letting the flash charge enough between shots? (speedlight/bounced)
> 4th...clear again
> View attachment 68182



If you look more closely, you can see this shot (shot #4) is not actually fully sharp. Look at the eye catchlight pattern, which shows a streak of light. And the hair on top of her head shows no real definition of individual hair. And her eyebrows have almost zero definition because they are being rendered by flash and also by ambient light. The FIRST shot is the sharpest, but #4 is not all that sharp.


----------



## paigew (Mar 7, 2014)

your right, it's really not that sharp :/ cool well thanks for the info


----------



## OrionsByte (Mar 7, 2014)

paigew said:


> Okay am I not getting something here?...why are the first and fourth photos totally sharp. At the same settings, same subjects not even a second apart.



People tend to move around in fits and starts, even when (maybe especially when) they're trying to hold still. That's why firing in burst mode with a hand-held camera at a slow-ish shutter speed will result in a set of photos with varying motion blur - even within split seconds of each other, you would be more still in some than in others.

When you _and_ your subject are both trying to hold still, the absolute sharpest frames are only going to happen when you _both _simultaneously hit one of those moments when you're both at your most still. A faster shutter speed would have dropped the ambient light down, reduced motion blur (from both you and your subject), and allowed the flash to take a more prominent role without any additional adjustments.


----------



## EIngerson (Mar 7, 2014)

What camera are you using? It looks to me like it just simply missed focus.


----------

