# Can't get rid of the flash-shadow



## cumi (Jun 23, 2008)

I tried the following setup:

- person - wall distance = about 1m
- flash (SB-600) on tripod, triggered wireless by my D70s, distance to person is about 2m, 45° angle direct/ceiling, selfmade white diffuser + built-in diffuser/widener glas (for 14mm focal lengths forseen)
- camera D70s, 18-70 lens at c.a. 70 mm, distance to person about 3m, shutter at 1/30 (F4.5), about 90° between camera-person and flash-person triangle







...and unfortunatly the shadow is stil there. The light ist nice soft, no harsh shadows in faces, would say that everything is perfect, but the damn shadow on the wall behind is always there. The less the background light (200W lamp on ceiling in the middle of the room) the more noticable is the shadow.

Any ideas? What could I try to avoid that shadow. It's really disturbing, it kills my photo (maternity photo with my wife). What am I doing wrong.

The only way, I was able to remove the flash (from the photo) is to move the camera to left (so the 90° camera-flash angle increased), so the shadow is not included on photo...

BTW, the photos are also quite underexposed. Not sure if I can set the BL / non-BL option for the wireless setups, too. The flash is recycled enough, the red led lamp is on...


Thanks,


----------



## PNA (Jun 23, 2008)

I am nowhere a light man, in fact I just discovered that using a flash works when there is bright back-lighting !!

However, I have tried bounce flash off the ceiling or even adjoining walls. Just a minor suggestion. I'll let the experts take it from here.......

P.S. Show us a shot......


----------



## JerryPH (Jun 23, 2008)

4 possibilities:

- Larger light source (get closer with the light, and lower it's power a touch)
- add a 2nd light on the left to counter the shadow
- add a reflector on the left to soften the sahdow
- creative light placement and crop out he shadow Either so it's out of the frame or it is behind them. It depends on what you are looking for.

In up close portraiture (head or bust), it is easier to control this vs full body portraits, but still if you take extra care to apply the same principals, it can be replicated.  Also, it is also easy to use too much light or harsher light.  I am often surprised that under some conditions even one studio strobe set to 1/8th shot through an umbrella give me too much light.  Thats where a softbox comes in as the better choice.


----------



## cumi (Jun 23, 2008)

JerryPH said:


> - Larger light source (get closer with the light, and lower it's power a touch)


 
You mean, I should move the tripod with flash closer to subject? I tried the opposite (moved away) and of course it didn't helped. So I'll try this.

Forgot to mention, the ceiling is 2,6m high, the flash is on 1,5m high.

What about the fact, that the photos are (quite badly) underexposed? Any Nikon technical experts (BL/nonBL @Wireless)?


----------



## JIP (Jun 23, 2008)

You made this wonderful illustration showing your flash position camera position etc. but no example pictures showing the shadow you are complaining about.


----------



## cumi (Jun 23, 2008)

JerryPH said:


> In up close portraiture (head or bust), it is easier to control this vs full body portraits...


 
Yeah, true.



JerryPH said:


> I am often surprised that under some conditions even one studio strobe set to 1/8th shot through an umbrella give me too much light. Thats where a softbox comes in as the better choice.


 
As mentioned above, I'm also strugling from underexposition with this setup...


----------



## cumi (Jun 23, 2008)

JIP said:


> You made this wonderful illustration showing your flash position camera position etc. but no example pictures showing the shadow you are complaining about.


 
You're right, I'll do that later (from home), if I didn't deleted allready all the very bad ones...


----------



## manaheim (Jun 23, 2008)

Jerry would know better than I, but if you have a bounce card on your flash that's going to increase the odds of a shadow on the wall... are you able to just bounce it off the ceiling?

(oh and... btw... *498*!) (lol... just realized I'm almost to 500 posts.)


----------



## cumi (Jun 23, 2008)

manaheim said:


> Jerry would know better than I, but if you have a bounce card on your flash that's going to increase the odds of a shadow on the wall... are you able to just bounce it off the ceiling?



Aha... Okay, I'll try that too. Stil 45 degrees?


----------



## Village Idiot (Jun 23, 2008)

Buy a shoot through umbrella?

Per JIP, no pics no idea.


----------



## Lyncca (Jun 23, 2008)

Village Idiot said:


> Buy a shoot through umbrella?
> 
> Per JIP, no pics no idea.



I had the same exact setup with the same problems.  The umbrella and reflector seems to have helped, but my first time to use it was on a black background, so it wouldn't have shown much, but I can already tell that the light is much more diffused and even.


----------



## manaheim (Jun 23, 2008)

cumi said:


> Aha... Okay, I'll try that too. Stil 45 degrees?


 
I'm not a lighting master, but 45 degrees will probably give you "more" shadow than 90 degrees.  I'd say you have to fiddle with it to get the effect that looks right for you.

Again, Jerry would likely be better in this space.  I usually work with a SINGLE on-camera flash.


----------



## AndrewG (Jun 23, 2008)

Have you tried using available light and a longer exposure? Diffused window light is more flattering than flash which can be unforgiving and harsh and your shadow problem will be solved.


----------



## manaheim (Jun 23, 2008)

AndrewG said:


> Have you tried using available light and a longer exposure? Diffused window light is more flattering than flash which can be unforgiving and harsh and your shadow problem will be solved.


 
I've been doing a lot of the longer exposure/diffused light with a single fire of the flash to even out the light in the room.  That actually works quite well as long as there is nothing moving in the shot.  I've found that relying exclusively on the light from windows in MOST locations leads to "overly dramatic" lighting at best.

It's continues to amaze me how little light we need to see and yet how much is necessary to properly expose a picture.


----------



## Village Idiot (Jun 23, 2008)

AndrewG said:


> Have you tried using available light and a longer exposure? Diffused window light is more flattering than flash which can be unforgiving and harsh and your shadow problem will be solved.


 
I beg to differ. If you have the right tools and know how to use them, then flash strobe lighting can be as good of if not better a solution.

There's no way this would have worked just using the window light. It wasn't bright enough and it would have been soft from the person moving. Exposed for ambient with one strobe with an octobox in the upper right of the frame. I can give you a link to thousands of photos where you wouldn't be able to tell whether or not ambient or flash was used.




Edit: See any harsh shadows?


----------



## manaheim (Jun 23, 2008)

^^^ really neat pic, btw.


----------



## Mike_E (Jun 23, 2008)

ARRRGH, move her away from the wall.


----------



## cumi (Jun 24, 2008)

Problem solved! There is no shadow anymore. I followed your tipps: removed the (self-made) bouncer, removed the built-in widener glas and directed the flash 90 deg to ceiling (not 45). Moving her away from wall and using a black background would have surely also help, but was not neccesery. Obviously, the more flash-light goes DIRECT to subject (even from bouncer or just a bit from the edges of the flash), the more shadow there will be. The more I have white background it's more stronger the shadow.

About the (under) exposure: I added a bit exp comp and the photo was lighter. That means to me: there was enough light from the flash, the camera exposed this way (probably because of overwhelming whites).

Sorry I didn't posted any examples yet, I'll do it later.


----------



## cumi (Jun 24, 2008)

cumi said:


> Moving her away from wall and using a black background would have surely also help, but...


 
I have limited space in my living-room for making photos, if I don't want to have a chair or TV on the photo. For the black background I would also need some equipment (or very creative ideas) or a lot of black color...


----------



## Mike_E (Jun 24, 2008)

Sorry about the space limits but it really is just a matter of geometry if you want to use light with enough direction to give interesting shadows to the face.


----------



## AndrewG (Jun 24, 2008)

Village Idiot said:


> I beg to differ. If you have the right tools and know how to use them, then flash strobe lighting can be as good of if not better a solution.
> 
> There's no way this would have worked just using the window light. It wasn't bright enough and it would have been soft from the person moving. Exposed for ambient with one strobe with an octobox in the upper right of the frame. I can give you a link to thousands of photos where you wouldn't be able to tell whether or not ambient or flash was used.
> 
> ...


 
Nope; point taken. I was speaking from my limited experience using flash-I much prefer available light.


----------



## AndrewG (Jun 24, 2008)

manaheim said:


> I've been doing a lot of the longer exposure/diffused light with a single fire of the flash to even out the light in the room. That actually works quite well as long as there is nothing moving in the shot. I've found that relying exclusively on the light from windows in MOST locations leads to "overly dramatic" lighting at best.
> 
> It's continues to amaze me how little light we need to see and yet how much is necessary to properly expose a picture.


 
I've used a reflector made out of a large sheet of cardboard with kitchen foil spray-mounted onto it to bounce window light which works well. Someone earlier mentioned 'overly dramatic' window lighting and using the reflector softens up the shadows nicely.


----------



## cumi (Jun 25, 2008)

Here is the bad example of shadow and under-exposure:







This photo is how it cames from camera, so without PS. Of course, the WB and exposure (histogram & curves) can be easily fixed.


----------

