# Daylight flash use v. natural light



## Soocom1 (Oct 14, 2019)

So one item that I had struggled with for years was the problem of daylight flash use including fill flash and other aspects that until recently came out looking horrible. So I have been an avid "natural light" shooter for years. 

I have a Metz 50MZ 5 and a canon speedlite along with a PixleKing flash on its way. 
So what techniques can some share in using them?


----------



## Designer (Oct 14, 2019)

Soocom1 said:


> I have a Metz 50MZ 5 and a canon speedlite along with a PixleKing flash on its way.
> So what techniques can some share in using them?


If your flash and camera work together to enable TTL flash, then just use that function.  Your flash will send a preliminary flash to measure how much light is needed, then calculate the flash power for the secondary flash, which in most cases will be enough for "fill" in ordinary daylight.  

If you want to be more precise, get a flash meter, and measure the flash striking your subject to set your aperture.  This is the preferred method if you wish to create a special lighting mood for instance, or if you are using more than one flash for the shot.


----------



## smoke665 (Oct 14, 2019)

It depends on the light, and the look, but a lot of times a little flash adds some pop on portraits. For casual use I'll mount my speedlight on camera with a small on flash softbox/diffuser. I set the camera meter to a couple marks underexposed then add flash to bring the exposure back. For an actual portrait I go off camera on a stand and meter the shot. I've thought about TTL but without spending $$$ for a camera compatible speedlight it wont work.


----------



## tirediron (Oct 14, 2019)

There are tens of thousands of videos on this subject on YouTube, much easier to watch a 5-10 minute clip than to try and explain the concepts of fill light in text.  That said, the first step is to be able to trigger the flash OFF of the camera; on-camera flash is not terribly useful; you can bounce it, and get some benefit, but that's limited.  Step two is to get some sort of modifier; a run-of-the-mill 42" reflecting umbrella is a great start.  Step three?  What do you want to do with the light from the flash?  Generally, you want to fill in or lift shadows, sooooooo...  placing it on the shadow side when using the sun as key makes sense.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 14, 2019)

Bounced Flash is extremely versatile, and a 50 series Metz is a very powerful tool outputting much more light than 95% of all speedlights ever made. As was mentioned YouTube has lots of videos. I would look for videos dealing with bounce Flash as well as using a small bounce card or plastic spoon to make a combination of Bounce light off of the ceiling or wall, as well as using the small card or spoon to direct a portion of the light beam straight ahead. Strobist website has lots of lessons on using flash off camera.

Keep in mind that with a modern camera it is easily possible to shoot fill flash or all flash shots at ISO levels of 800 to 1000 with perfectly acceptable results.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 14, 2019)

One technique that you might look into is commonly called dragging the shutter, and this means that you slow the shutter speed way down when shooting Flash, into the 1/40 to one fifth of a second  range at most
Times. This allows whatever light is present at the scene to be recorded by the sensor and this does two things. The first thing it does is it makes light fixtures and on scene lights register, and it can also add a warmer glow in many cases.

The difference between shooting at maximum synchronization speed which is usually 1/250 or 1/200 of a second and between let's say 1/20 of a second is quite often a huge difference, and in the dragged shutter shots it will usually be a much more realistic-looking portrayal of the lighting that was present at the scene. You might think that you run the risk of blurry shots, but my experience is that it is not that big of a problem. I often like 1/15th to 1/6 of a second in many lower light indoor locations.


----------



## Soocom1 (Oct 14, 2019)

part in part of this is my niec's wedding. 

The Metz may be slated tot he Blad (I found a setting that changed the whole affair from previous issues) and the speedlights for the reception. 

There are specific concerns to the daylight that I most concerned about. 

Weather permitting, the intent is to have the wedding at the Santa Ana Star Casino on the other side of the street from Bernalillo. 

This is significant for several reasons: 

1: The wedding starts at 4:30 pm. 
2: The ceremony is to be held in a special location NE of the Hotel on an area the tribe built specifically for such events, including games. So there is greenery that may be turning brownish. That I cant control. 
3: The hotel (If you look on Google Earth) is in just the right spot where at 4:30-5:00 pm on Oct. 25th during the ceremony there is going to be a longed shadow of the Casino Hotel tower reaching the grounds where the ceremony is at. Ergo: silhouetted ceremony with a nasty shadow.  
The guests are facing east so they wont be blinded, BUT, to get a good image of the vows taking, I have to (I have no choice) face the sun and Hotel. 
4: I also have to consider the blinding effect on guests and making sure I am not distracting. 
5: And then comes the horses. She is insisting on horses at the end of the ceremony to ride back to the casino with, and I have to consider (I've talked with the pueblo) about the horses freaking over the flash, and they have never done this before so they don't know. 

Outside all of this, I am also taking photos of items in the out of doors with flash witht he sun at diff. angles and positions. The effects so far are positive. 

The big question now is blowout.


----------



## texxter (Oct 14, 2019)

Are you the official photographer of the event, or just a relative trying to get additional photos for the couple.  If the former, and you anticipate the need for flash and you have no experience with flash for events, I would say this is a problematic situation.  Normally for weddings you hire people who know what they are doing because a reshoot is not possible.   If it is just for fun, then I would rely on high ISO and optionally some TTL flash.  The higher the ISO the less flash power is needed, and the less annoying the flash will be.    If you have fast lenses and a steady hand you may be able to shoot without flash.   Good luck! It certainly looks challenging!


----------



## Soocom1 (Oct 14, 2019)

texxter said:


> Are you the official photographer of the event, or just a relative trying to get additional photos for the couple.  If the former, and you anticipate the need for flash and you have no experience with flash for events, I would say this is a problematic situation.  Normally for weddings you hire people who know what they are doing because a reshoot is not possible.   If it is just for fun, then I would rely on high ISO and optionally some TTL flash.  The higher the ISO the less flash power is needed, and the less annoying the flash will be.    If you have fast lenses and a steady hand you may be able to shoot without flash.   Good luck! It certainly looks challenging!




This is actually something that basically got thrust on me. 
I had originally been asked to do the wedding about two years ago, but then she popped up and told me that her friend, who is the daughter of a pro photographer that she went to school with would shoot it. OK, no issues, Ill show up with my cell phone and catch a few quietly. 

Then she comes back to me 4 months ago to tell me that the money she is spending is only for specific family shots. (Dont ask, I dont know). 

The details of what she was setting up was given to me only that 4 months ago so its now a game of catch up. 
I spotted the shadow problem when we visited the site in early July.  Then she told me about the horses. 

I honestly thought this would be indoors and easily dealt with using gels and a speedlight.  
But apparently she really played specific details for this wedding that caught even the pro end planners at the Pueblo off guard.


----------



## smoke665 (Oct 14, 2019)

Soocom1 said:


> And then comes the horses. She is insisting on horses at the end of the ceremony to ride back to the casino with, and I have to consider (I've talked with the pueblo) about the horses freaking over the flash, and they have never done this before so they don't know.



My experience has been  it's generally frowned on using flash during the ceremony. After/before no problem, however the horses creates a serious issue IMO. That would really put a damper on things fast and cause a lot of really bad feelings (not to mention legal issues)  if the horses were to freak and cause injury to themselves or others at the wedding.


----------



## Soocom1 (Oct 14, 2019)

smoke665 said:


> Soocom1 said:
> 
> 
> > And then comes the horses. She is insisting on horses at the end of the ceremony to ride back to the casino with, and I have to consider (I've talked with the pueblo) about the horses freaking over the flash, and they have never done this before so they don't know.
> ...


I pointed this out to her. 

I may have to insist on the issue. 
But the flash may be a necessity because of the silhouetting issue and the shadow.  That I cannot avoid, unless snow comes in.


----------



## texxter (Oct 14, 2019)

Can't you just say "no" with some excuse?  Run while you can...


----------



## Soocom1 (Oct 14, 2019)

Not from my sister. 

Ill simply say watch the news on oct. 25th. 
thatll tell you what happened.


----------



## Overread (Oct 14, 2019)

smoke665 said:


> Soocom1 said:
> 
> 
> > And then comes the horses. She is insisting on horses at the end of the ceremony to ride back to the casino with, and I have to consider (I've talked with the pueblo) about the horses freaking over the flash, and they have never done this before so they don't know.
> ...



In my experience most animals have almost no reaction to flash.
I've also noticed that many events ban flash for equine photography until you're at the big leagues and then the huge and loud stadium can be full of flash. Furthermore horses born and raised today are more likely to have been flashed with phones and point and shoots almost before they are fully out of the mare in todays' world. 

THAT said they can also run a hundred miles if they see a rock looking at them the wrong way. Horses are almost all flight animals. Their reaction to fear is to run. It might not be the light of the flash, it could be the slight pop of the flash when it fires that sets them off. Or any one of a million other things happening at the same time. With unknown animals in a new situation with people riding who might be wearing abnormal clothing and not suited to riding a sudden bolting horse its just adding risk to consider using flash. 

The only time you MIGHT consider it is if you knew the horses and practised with them extensively. Then you at least lower (not remove) the risk.
For horses you don't know in a situation you don't know and don't control and with riders and people around who are not going to be prepared for risk just turn the flash right off. Also don't bring a reflector or such either (in fact a bit moving white reflector is EVEN MORE likely to spook horses than a flash). 


Your best bet might be to rent a top end camera body a few days before so that you've a body with top end ISO performance and likely something from Nikon with their ISO Invariant sensors to give you the best possible dark restoration of light data.


----------



## Soocom1 (Oct 14, 2019)

So far at this moment I talked with her and she is telling me that the horse thing is not set in stone. 
something with some drama took place and she is reconsidering some things.


----------



## texxter (Oct 14, 2019)

Soocom1 said:


> Not from my sister.
> 
> Ill simply say watch the news on oct. 25th.
> thatll tell you what happened.



I took photos at my sister's wedding in 2006.   I flew across the Atlantic to be there that day.  But I wasn't the official photographer of the wedding.   I did take some portraits of her and a few were keepers, but many photos were bad because the light was horrendous and I just didn't know how to deal with it.    If my sister had asked me to be the photographer I would have told her that I loved her too much for my poor photos to memorialize the event.  Someone with the experience and know-how did it and she was happy with them.

I realize there is no way out of this now, and you may not even consider it,  so do as much preparation as you can, including photograhing there days before if possible, and testing different approaches.  Best luck!


----------



## Soocom1 (Oct 14, 2019)

And here is my problem.... This was taken today, Oct. 14th at 5:15 PM.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 14, 2019)

Regarding the above two photos, if you zoom in and just focus in on the couple and the officiant, then you should have a very minimal amount of sky. As was mentioned above by our fine British member and moderator, today's new ISO invariant sensors can handle a tremendous amount of Shadow recovery in post-processing when files are shot in raw mode.

Regarding flash I think the idea that horses
are bothered by flash quite possibly dates way back to the flashbulb era. A flashbulb is a long-duration, slow-peaking output of light that typically leaves one with a sense of retinal burning, whereas electronic flash is as brief as one ten thousandth of a second in duration, but more typically around one one thousandth of a second. It is gone like that!

The simplest way to set your exposure would be to use a fast shutter speed and a lens aperture and an ISO that gives a good exposure for the brightest part of the scene, and then illuminate the foreground with flash and keep the flash to subject distance  constant so that the flash exposure does not deviate between frames. If the flash is on camera, then keep your subject distance the same and merely zoom in with a zoom lens to get the framing you desire.

A couple of issues should be discussed first off. If your flash is at 20 ft from the wedding scene, then there is very little fall off in light intensity across the entire width of a horizontal frame. If the flash is 50 feet away there is so little fall-off that we could call it no fall-off. The closer the flash is, the more rapidly it will fall-off in intensity with distance, as per the inverse Square law,so my suggestion is to set your flash around 15 to 20 feet away and no closer. I am advocating that you set your flash unit on a light stand off to the side of the area of the ceremony, and that you use a wireless trigger.

The second issue is flash power needed. if we set the camera to 100 ISO we need twice as much flash power as we would if the camera were to have been set at 200 ISO. at 400 ISO we need just a little bit of flash, while at 800 or 1000 ISO, the amount of flash needed is truly negligible. Of course you need to be mindful of your ISO as it relates to the exposure for the sky. I am assuming that the Metz 50-series is a traditional flash and that you cannot do a high-speed synchronization with it. Some people will point out and rightfully so that when you do high speed sync with a flash, that cuts the flash power down, but I would counter that when you are doing fill-flash you want to be two-and-a-half to three stops under the ambient light, so the loss of flash power is in effect, negligible

We also need to consider whether we're using flash as the main illumination, which we would be in my shooting method described above, where you set the camera to expose correctly for the highlight areas and you fill in the dark areas with flash. This is called flash as main light, or flash as key light.

If the ceremony is in full sunlight, and you are using flash as shadow fill-in, then the amount of flash should be approximately 2.5 or or 2.7 or even 3.0 stops less than the main exposure. With a TTL flash my normal practice is to set the exposure control for the flash at -2.7 EV, which I think looks good. With a more traditional flash unit, this might just as easily be accomplished by setting the ISO level on the flash to a higher-than-actual-ISO-in-use value.

In a fixed setting you might find that somewhere around 1/4 or 1/8 power manual flash output is adequate for fill-in light on your shadows, depending upon the iso the camera is set to, and the power and distance of your flash unit.

Over the past half-decade or so the amount of shadow recovery that has become possible with ISO invariant sensors is incredible to me. What were once impossibly underexposed raw files are now completely and totally recoverable. We now are back to almost black and white film levels of scene dynamic range which can be handled with the best sensors of today.


----------



## Designer (Oct 15, 2019)

Soocom1 said:


> And here is my problem.... This was taken today, Oct. 14th at 5:15 PM.


Try metering for the shadows.  Use "spot metering" on the main subject, and lock exposure for the shot.

To maximize the sky detail, make sure your camera is set to its maximum dynamic range.  If the sky is somewhat washed out, so be it, but you need to get the exposure correct on your main subject (the people).


----------



## Soocom1 (Oct 15, 2019)

Derrel said:


> Regarding the above two photos, if you zoom in and just focus in on the couple and the officiant, then you should have a very minimal amount of sky. As was mentioned above by our fine British member and moderator, today's new ISO invariant sensors can handle a tremendous amount of Shadow recovery in post-processing when files are shot in raw mode.
> 
> Regarding flash I think the idea that horses
> are bothered by flash quite possibly dates way back to the flashbulb era. A flashbulb is a long-duration, slow-peaking output of light that typically leaves one with a sense of retinal burning, whereas electronic flash is as brief as one ten thousandth of a second in duration, but more typically around one one thousandth of a second. It is gone like that!
> ...


Good point to consider. 
The horse is out, but a mini-pony with the ring bearer is in. 
So I dodged that bullet. 
There may be some other changes. 

Drama apparently.


----------



## texxter (Oct 15, 2019)

Derrel said:


> We also need to consider whether we're using flash as the main illumination, which we would be in my shooting method described above, where you set the camera to expose correctly for the highlight areas and you fill in the dark areas with flash. This is called flash as main light, or flash as key light.



This confused me.  I was under the impression that main or key light refers to the light that illuminates the subject, i.e., the couple, which is the subject of the ceremony photos.  The couple receives most of its light from the key light.   If we say that flash is the key light, then the flash is what determines the value of the diffused value on the people.  Other sources of illumination, like ambient, provide contrast control, by  increasing the shadow value.  In other words, a key flash light is not filling shadows, but determining the exposure on the people getting married.  The ambient could add to that by adding illumination to the background or to the couple itself.

On the other hand if ambient is the key light, then the exposure value is determined by ambient, and metering should be done for ambient.  The flash can then be used to reduce contrast by raising the value of shadows.  This would be fill flash.

Please forgive me if I misunderstood.


----------



## jcdeboever (Oct 15, 2019)

I often use flash outdoors in HSS mode. Mostly when someone is under a cover, in the shade, or backlit. I will meter the background in manual mode which normally will take you out of the camera's sync speed range, consult you camera manual to enable HSS if available. I use the flash on the camera on and off, off typically is more appealing. I literally hand hold it and have it corded so I can flip over my shoulder as I adjust the exposure, I then grab it and hold it off to the side and higher then the lens axis. I really prefer the increase in image fidelity and color saturation that a flash provides. As far as indoors, I have no issue shooting at ISO800 and TTL mode as long as the scene is not back lit from a window. I use flash at least 50% (if not more) of the time these days, that includes film as well. Most of my film cameras don't have TTL, so I shoot them mostly in automatic (Nikon). The ones that have TTL, I still shoot them in automatic mode, mostly.


----------



## Soocom1 (Oct 15, 2019)

Well one thing that is going ok is that she is not worried about uber specific detailes. 

I am now structuring the equipment used for the situation with a plan B, C and D. 

and if I know my sister well enough, plan F. 

the Blad is out because it simply wont record anything under daylight illumination w/o the Metz.  The Metz blinds everyone for about a half mile. 

So I am going to shoot the Canons for this and use longer lenses. (trying to stay out of the way.) 

I am not sure as of yet but there is a possibility that there may be lighting outside. Poss. portable HEI. 
which will def. change the situation.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Oct 15, 2019)

No, I think the big question is, why did you ever agree to this in the first place? But what's done is done. 

For the photos posted, I often aim the camera somewhat downward to meter the subject/scene in front of me (like the playground equipment) so the camera's meter isn't reading that sunlight coming in from the background/at a distance. I usually take 2-3 pictures to make sure I've got a decent exposure. 

I've done lots of sports and events indoors in existing light, much of it in lousy lighting where flash wasn't an option, but I can't tell you everything I've learned and practiced and done over the years in one post on a message board. Probably not any more than experienced portrait/wedding photographers can teach you everything they know how to do when faced with challenging lighting or other unexpected circumstances. 

If you may need to use the existing light I'd say go early, ahead of time for a test run if possible, and notice where the light at least looks best (avoid dark corners of a room, etc.). Outdoors I tend to frame lower if the sky/light is problematic (hazy, glare, etc.); I include more sky when it's blue with puffy white clouds. 

I guess this will be like cramming for a test in the next week and a half.


----------



## RVT1K (Oct 15, 2019)

Soocom1 said:


> So far at this moment I talked with her and she is telling me that the horse thing is not set in stone.
> something with some drama took place and she is reconsidering some things.



A girl, a wedding and drama??!! Shocking....


----------



## JBPhotog (Oct 15, 2019)

Just a quick observation, in the two examples you have shown you are exposing for the clouds. Your ambient exposure is off by a couple of stops. Even with flash fill anything in excess of a stop usually looks artificial, not that there is anything wrong with that approach.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Oct 15, 2019)

Yeah, the sky looks fine, the building back there is somewhat dark, and the foreground is really dark. Frame downward to meter in front of you where the subject is or will be, and think about what length lens to use to help avoid getting such a large area in the scene.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 15, 2019)

texxter said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > We also need to consider whether we're using flash as the main illumination, which we would be in my shooting method described above, where you set the camera to expose correctly for the highlight areas and you fill in the dark areas with flash. This is called flash as main light, or flash as key light.
> ...


 I am not sure what your question is. Flash can be used as a key light or as a fill-in light. It is up to the photographer to determine how he will use flash, either as the primary source of Illumination, or as a Shadow fill in light to reduce Shadows. In most cases when flash is used as a fill-in source, the camera is set to expose for the ambient light and the amount of flash is typically used is around -2.7 exposure value in relation to the ambient exposure, thus avoiding the so-called over flashed look. When flash is used as the main light or key light source,the camera exposure settings are derived from the Flash output level.


----------



## Soocom1 (Oct 15, 2019)

JBPhotog said:


> Just a quick observation, in the two examples you have shown you are exposing for the clouds. Your ambient exposure is off by a couple of stops. Even with flash fill anything in excess of a stop usually looks artificial, not that there is anything wrong with that approach.


Well keep this in mind. 
The problem wasn't so much exposure per se. 
Its the fact that the sun's position yesterday is just barely above the hotel. 
On the 25th it will be behind the hotel and the whole shebang will be in shadows. 

So even though exposure will actually be more uniform, its now a matter of balancing out the shade with necessary illumination for good shots, without much flash!


----------



## JBPhotog (Oct 16, 2019)

Soocom1 said:


> JBPhotog said:
> 
> 
> > Just a quick observation, in the two examples you have shown you are exposing for the clouds. Your ambient exposure is off by a couple of stops. Even with flash fill anything in excess of a stop usually looks artificial, not that there is anything wrong with that approach.
> ...



I did read your post about the change of sun position. I was directing your exposure to the ambient in your two examples. If a person was facing you they essentially would be a silhouette, this means your exposure is off by a good margin. Filling  it with flash means you need more power than required, recycle times are longer and the resulting photos will have a distinct harshness to them unless everyone is facing the same angle as the fill flash. You may want to start with a reasonably correct ambient exposure first before determining your fill.


----------



## Soocom1 (Oct 17, 2019)

Below are three examples of techniques I am trying out. 

The first is no flash
The second is full flash directly at the subject
the third is full flash but with a cotton cloth defuseer in front of the flash. 

There isnt much diff. unless you look closely between the second two. 

So given this aspect, what is the take of many on useing this and other techniques? 

Especially use of deffusers. 
1:











2:






3:


----------



## JBPhotog (Oct 17, 2019)

Don't bother with the diffusion over the speed light (#3), all it is doing is cutting down the output and affecting the colour balance. The evidence is in the shadow projection on the green tomatoes and the stalk of the plant, note how sharp the shadow transition is, its the same in #2 and #3. BTW, ambient exposure looks good.

For the most part, if you don't change the size of the light source you don't change the harshness. The only aspect where a diffusion layer on the surface of the speed light does work is to even out the character of the light projection, as in if there was a hot spot from the bare head a diffusion layer can distribute it more evenly. If you want a softer light, use a modifier bigger than the flash head. The softness of the light is in relation to the size of the subject and how far away it is. Using a larger modifier thirty feet away will cast shadows like a smaller light source close up, hard not soft. HTH.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 17, 2019)

Small diffusers only work at close range. Commin diffusers like the StoFen OmniBounce, for example, work pretty well as long as you are pretty close. As was mentioned above , if you want softer Light, then you need to increase the size of the light source, such as with a softbox or umbrella.

There is no type of small diffuser that will really help you out much on something as big as a wedding scene. I would recommend that you switch to at least a small umbrella of 27 to 33 in. in diameter. If you work out the square inches of a light modifier you will find that something that is 24 in by 24 in, such as a small made-in-China softbox is actually many times softer than any speed light modifier.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 17, 2019)

A 24 by 24 in soft box has a square inch rating of 576. If you look at most flash modifiers they're from 3 to 10 square inches


----------



## Braineack (Oct 24, 2019)

Derrel said:


> There is no type of small diffuser that will really help you out much on something as big as a wedding scene. I



plus they rob light.

I use these:

https://www.amazon.com/waka-Flash-D...uPWNsaWNrUmVkaXJlY3QmZG9Ob3RMb2dDbGljaz10cnVl






I also use these:


----------



## Braineack (Oct 24, 2019)

proof!


----------



## Derrel (Oct 24, 2019)

On the last photo we can see the Flash causing a highlight on the balloon. The original non-flash shot was not that bad though oh, and the Flash did not really rescue a bad shot as much as improved a good one.


----------



## Braineack (Oct 25, 2019)

The biggest improvement is where it brings out there eyes.  But you can see how direct on-camera flash can knock down the shadows.

But yeah, it was still a bit overcast that morning so not necessary, I just wanted to use flash at a low-power to give everyone a bit of pop.


----------

