Carnivorous Plants And My First Time Using Flash!

As discussed here, we were at Harrogate Flower Show yesterday and I was using flash for the first time. Not too sure how well I have done with these so please leave some comments. For me, this is where I want to become a 'good photographer'. Real world photography! I had little control over composition, other than moving myself to change the angles, etc. There's no chance of popping back on a nicer day when the lighting is different. And I didn't have ages to plan the shot as there were 'pesky people' to contend with too!

For info, these were shot inside in pretty poor light. The flash was a Canon 580EX II set on ETTL, and I might have dialed in some -ve compensation. Not sure whether the exif shows this and I can't remember.

Anyways here goes... you don't need to be kind, I'm posting these for comments, not a pat on the head!

If the shots are too small, or your eyesight failing, you can click to view Biggr on Flickr!

1.



2.



3.



In an attempt to learn self-crit, my own thoughts are...

1. Good. The flash on the leaf just left of the 'flower' is a little harsh, so could probably do with some pp to bring it down a little.

2. The hairy bits on the left are a distraction, again the flash is a little harsh, and I think I missed the focus slightly.

3. Simple and elegant. Shame couldn't have got the whole 'shaft' in, but not bad. Not the most exciting shot though.

...and that's my thoughts. If anyone can offere recommendations for improvement regarding the lighting, then I'd be most appreciative. And any other comments good or bad, please let me know.

1
The best of the bunch for me, the lighting looks good and the dof is spot on (even if it does look like a condom).

2
I don't know if it's the angle or as you say the hairy bits but it just doesn't look right, sorry I can't be more specific.

3
Would've been nice with the shaft in but a nice simple picture all the same.
Was the background dark or was that the clever use of lighting?

I don't know anything about using flash but they look ok to me.

cowboy said:

Was the background dark or was that the clever use of lighting?

Click to expand...

Sorry, my flash skills are such that I can't manage 'clever' things. The background was black, but I did knock the flash down a little so the background hopefully stayed dark.

Hmm, was hoping for more than one comment. This doesn't bode well!

I was hoping I'd managed to pull off more than a few snapshots, in what I'd call a snapshot environment/situation.

As I contributed to your original post, asking for help, here are my thoughts on your results....

Firstly you seem to have achieved your objective to make the subject stand out against thebackground by deliberately keeping the background dark, relative to your subject.

#1 I'm assuming you were using the bare flash head, with no modifier attached. You turned the camera clockwise to get your portrait orientation, and this placed the fash to the right of the camera. As a consequence the shadows cast by the flash by the "pod" have fallen onto the leaf beside/behind it. If you had turned the camera the other way the flash shadow would have fallen into the abyss behind the plant.

In using a bare flash, aimed directly at the subject, you have very strong specular highlights, which are reflecting straight back at the camera. Even if you aimed the flash at 45 degrees, unless you have a surface above for the flash light to bounce back from, you are still only benefitting from direct flash as your illumination source. Ideally, you want a small (large would be better, but a little unwieldy in a public area) softbox, to make the source of light appear bigger, and an off-camera lead so that you can position the flash wherever you wish, to control the angle of light and the shadows that are cast. With the flash stuck to the camera your creative control options are severely limited.

#2 Similar problems with specualr highlights from small flash light source. If you had a third hand, or an assistant, maybe you could have pulled the hairy things out of the shot, but it looks like you were a bit stuffed here. If you'd had time and room, and an assistant, you could have tried to block the flash light from reaching the hairy stuff. As it is, you could maybe clone out the hairs or crop tightly to a non standard crop ratio to remove them altogether.

#3 This looks like a great example of controling the exposure to lose the background comletely. The exposure you have is good and the focus/DOF is pretty good too. Well done


It is possible to shoot with the camera in one hand and the flash in the other hand, linked by an off-camera sync cord. For your needs, a small softbox would complete the setup. See this guy in action for an example of handheld off-camera flash use (no softbox though). Skip past the first minute, as it is just junk, then note how the photographer has a flash on a cord and another remote flash, but he is quite creative with how he holds the corded flash...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQKqj4W0QWI

I think you've done well, with the equiment and setup that you had, but to create real art will require a bit more kit and the time/space to set things up properly. I know this would have not been possible in the situation you were in, so all in all I think you coped with the challenge quite nicely, especially as you were just learning this stuff.

Many thanks for taking the time to comment Tim. Your comments are much appreciated. Yes, the flash was bare head. So to soften it do I need one of those little 'stoff****' things (milk carton), or something a little more purposeful? I remember seeing like mini softbox's that clip onto the actual flash. I won't be buying at the minute, but always good to further my knowledge.

I hadn't even thought about the consequences of rotating the camera 90°, and the fact I could have rotated the other way.

Will have a look at that vid tonite. And again, many thanks for the help.

An off camera cord is my next purchase I think, as there's a few things I want to try that need one. I'll seek some advice in store, but am I right in thinking that the one i need is about £50 !!!

You make the light appear softer by making the light source (much) larger relative to the subject, ideally so that the light source is actually larger than the subject. When you add a Stofen Omnibounce (or eBay equivalent for a fraction of the price) you barely change the size of the light source at all. In order to work, the Stofen relies upon being in a relatively enclosed space. It spreads the light around and it works by having the light bounce back off ceiling and walls to create the impression of a huge source of light. If the ceiling/walls are too far away, or you are outdoors, then the Stofen will be of no use at all. It will simply weaken the flash hitting your subject and drain the batteries faster. Also, if you are close to your subject the Stofen will dominate the lighting with its own direct light anyway. If the Stofen is 1' from your subject and the ceiling/walls are 10' away then by the time the bounced element has traveled 20' in all and been partially absorbed by the bounce surfaces there will be little left by the time it gets back to your subject.

The idea of a softbox is that it does not rely on bouncing at all, but simply makes the light source so much larger to begin with. In my picture of the Robin I posted in your other thread, you will see my first home made softbox in action. This was made from a plastic milk jug, wrapped on four sides by aluminium foil, held in place by rubber bands and then covered in clingwrap to stop the foil getting ripped up. Here is a picture of it, close up....



The picture includes a more elegantly constructed softbox, bought from eBay for a few quid. As bought, it was completely useless, but I bought a cheap (89p) plain white shower curtain from Asda and cut a 7"x5" sheet from that to stick inside the eBay softbox, giving me a lovely soft light.

eBay softbox (useless without modification)....

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Inside-Flash-...=39:1|66:4|65:2|240:1318&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14

My sync cords came from eBay as well, and cost me around £18 delivered from Hong Kong. Here's the item (cheaper now)....

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Off-Camera-E-...=39:1|66:4|65:2|240:1318&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14

eBay Omnibounce - just as good as the real thing, I'm sure, but only useful indoors with something to bounce off....

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Flash-Diffuse...=39:1|66:4|65:2|240:1318&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14

There is a thread discussing softboxes for flashguns, here....

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=67917

By the way, in order to be effective, a softbox needs to be close to your subject. The further away you place it, the smaller it appears relative to your subject. With a small softbox, used 10' away, you may as well not bother. However, used from 1' away it will appear quite huge, relative to an individual flower. If you think about it, the sun is quite huge, but it is a long way away. Thus it provides very hard light, with hard, well defined shadow edges. o size alone is not enough. It is size and distance that is important.