# Flash and DoF and background questions



## Scott S (Sep 14, 2003)

Please bear with me. This is a picture from the 5th roll of film I've ever shot from a real camera. I've got some learnin' to do, and I hope you can help.







This was taken with a Rebel Ti with a 420 EX flash bouncing off the white ceiling. The camera was set to Auto mode, so 1/90", f/4.5 at about 65mm. I was about 4 feet away.  The photo's cropped, but otherwise untouched and no color/exposure corrections on the scan.

I see three things I'd like to correct. His face is too bright, only his head is in focus, and I'd like to get the background darker. The DoF calculator says that I'd have to be at f/22 to get him all in focus, which would mean a 1/6" shutter speed. That seem right? With a cat, I'm not sure he'd stay still for that long. And with the flash bounced, I don't know why his face is so bright.

If you see more problems, yell out! I'm far too new at this to be hurt.







This one needs a lot of work. Black cat on a predominantly white background. Hmmm.... Lotsa work needed here. 

Any hints or tips appreciated.


----------



## voodoocat (Sep 14, 2003)

The red x's seemed to be exposed fine 

I tried to copy/paste the url but got page cannot be displayed


----------



## Scott S (Sep 14, 2003)

I accidentally put in my internal address, not visible to the world. It should be OK now.


----------



## motcon (Sep 14, 2003)

still don't see photos....


----------



## Scott S (Sep 14, 2003)

And finally I remembered to change the firewall ruleset....


----------



## photobug (Sep 14, 2003)

You'll want to use a faster shutter speed to darken the background. To do that you'll have to go manual and set your aperture and shutter speeds yourself.

Did you have the pop up flash disabled (if there is one)? Looks like maybe it fired in a reduced power mode.

You'll need to use a smaller aperture to get the whole cat in focus. Depending on what lens you're using it might be hard to do at that distance.

For the black cat you'll probably have to expose for the bed spread and up your EV compensation to around +2 or so. You'll have to play around to get it right.

_Popular Photography & Imaging_ magazine (Sept 03) had a great article on fill flash that would be worth reading.

Jim


----------



## Dew (Sep 15, 2003)

i dont have anything to add, but those are some cute kittys


----------



## carlita (Sep 15, 2003)

out of curiosity, how come you want the whole cat in focus?  maybe it's a personal thing, but i think the depth of field looks alright the way it is.  i'd maybe even make it shallower myself.  oh well.   to each their own, right?


----------



## Scott S (Sep 15, 2003)

Photobug: I was using a 420EX flash on this, bouncing off the ceiling. But it looks reduced to you? To me it looks like the face got too much flash. 

Dew: The kitties would thank you, I'm sure. However, I dare not tell them, as it may swell their egos even more.

Carlita: I played a bit in PS and I do believe you're right. Now to achieve the effect directly...


----------



## voodoocat (Sep 15, 2003)

carlita said:
			
		

> out of curiosity, how come you want the whole cat in focus?  maybe it's a personal thing, but i think the depth of field looks alright the way it is.  i'd maybe even make it shallower myself.  oh well.   to each their own, right?



I agree.  Just make sure the eyes are sharp.


----------



## photobug (Sep 15, 2003)

I agree, it looks like too much flash, but i was wondering if there's a pop-up flash that fired as well. If not, you might try going manual mode on the flash and crank it down and see what that does for you.

Not being familiar with your setup I can't really do much but guess & that's always a dangerous thing!   

Jim


----------



## grimmett (Sep 17, 2003)

Looks to me like the flash spilled onto the cats face.  It's too frontal to be just ceiling bounce.  Maybe you should have flagged the flash to make sure none of the light from the flash hit him directly.
Cute cat though!


----------



## Scott S (Sep 17, 2003)

It was a bounce, but perhaps not enough angle on the flash. Something to play with. I also didn't have a diffuser on, so he could easily have gotten some (too much!) straight on.

This flash - Canon 420 EX - seems like it's all automatic. I've read through the manual and see nothing on manual controls, nor do I have any buttons beyond on/off and slow/fast sync.

I think I'm going to have to start buying better equipment and start lying to the wife about the price. "No honey, lenses are _cheap_."


----------



## Kent Frost (Jan 27, 2004)

Well, I don't know how else to say this, but I can't agree with you that the flash was bounced off the ceiling in this picture:






If you look just under his chin, the shadow is almost too harsh to be bounced, but rather dead on. You say you used a EX420 flash, well that looks to be about right, considering how much space there is from his chin and the end of that shadow, it almost gives the impression that there IS a light coming from higher up than the built-in flash could reach, but not coming from above the way it would be if it were bounced straight up. If you were to have bounced that flash, it would make the shadows very soft, like so:







Is there a possibility that the flash was not COMPLETELY tilted up????


----------

