Fill In flash (strobe) Conundrum

[Toby]

I'm shooting transparency at the moment and want to apply my SLR fill in flash techniques to RF

Equipment: Bessa R (flash sync 1/125), Ultron 35/1.7, Vivitar 283 Flash, Provia 100f

My starting point is strobe 1 stop less than ambient reading and then underexpose by 1/2 stop on the aperture.

so.. reading 1/60 @ f8 I would set the flash to f5.6 and expose at 1/60 @ f8 1/2

My only problem is in sunny weather when I need fill the most (ie 1/125 @ f16 ISO 100) I run out of f stops (Ultron only goes to F16)

any suggestions?

 

[pvdhaar]

A neutral density filter would do the job, though you must take into account that it cuts both ambient and flash. In other words: you may need a strong flash..

 

[rover]

If you use an Omni Bounce or Lumiquest Bounce thingy on the flash that will disperse the light and effectively provide a little less power too.

 

[Fred]

You'll either need to reduce the amount of light entering the lens either by stopping down, or as Peter states by using an ND filter (and more flash power to compensate). The other option is to use a slower film which may be quite hard given you are already using 100 ISO.

The bottom line is that using an camera with a focal plane shutter (not including the high end modern SLRs) with fill in flash is a problem given that there is a restriction on the highest synch shutter speed.

 

[jaapv]

Sunny weather? In England? But seriously, in some cases reflecting screens will do the job.
If you scan your photo's there is still a lot you to balance the shadows can do using photoshop.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

In sunny weather, contrast is higher and the shadow areas are further down in exposure from the sun-lit background and highlights. A higher proportion of flash for the person's face that is in the shadows probably will not hurt. In these cases, I just set the flash to match the exposure and go with it. Otherwise, the ND filter will work. So did Kodachrome-25 when it was around.

 

[Toby]

Has anyone used fill 2 stops under and not compensated for the extra light? Is this too little to make a difference?

Obviously there is some testing to be done but if I could be led away from any dead end that would be great

Thank you all for your help

Toby

 

[jaapv]

I usually don't compensate, as the flash will a. not affect the bright areas to any significant extent. b. will be too far away to have any influence on the bright background

 

[jaapv]

In sunny weather, contrast is higher and the shadow areas are further down in exposure from the sun-lit background and highlights. A higher proportion of flash for the person's face that is in the shadows probably will not hurt. In these cases, I just set the flash to match the exposure and go with it. Otherwise, the ND filter will work. So did Kodachrome-25 when it was around.

I think, Brian, that his problem is not in the flash setting, but that he overexposes the general photo at 16-125

 

[Toby]

My problem is I want to fill in the shadows but I don't want it to look like too artificial. Also if i'm photogaphing a face half in/half out of the sun I want the shadows to still be there - I don't want to obliterate the ambient mood of the picture - I just want to ensure the shadow areas have *some* detail in them. In a sentence I know I'm going to have to use flash I just don't want it to look like I have

 

[Solinar]

The use of a fill-flash that is set two stops below the exposure, lightens shadows enough so that they print well and they still appear natural. Retaining some shadow detail give the image a sense of depth. This works indoors as well with an on-camera flash.

 

[Toby]

The use of a fill-flash that is set two stops below the exposure, lightens shadows enough so that they print well and they still appear natural. Retaining some shadow detail give the image a sense of depth. This works indoors as well with an on-camera flash.

That sounds like my starting point

Many thanks


Toby