facial hair greatly exaggerated by flash

dubcat

dubcat

Messages
1,310
Name
Amir
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi,

I took my camera with me to a birthday party last night. It was set in the garden and I used my flash on top of my camera. I have noticed that in all of the photographs even very tiny amounts of facial hair have been greatly exaggerated. For example here are some 100% crops from the face of a 12 year old girl who definitely does not have excessive facial hair. On the older ladies it is even more exaggerated and I am scared they are going to batter me!

Her face filled the frame. These are unprocessed by me (it think lightroom might do some stuff by default but i'm not sure). The pictures are taken at iso400 on a canon 50d using a canon 580ex ii flash mounted on the hot shoe.

Can anyone tell me why this is happening and how to avoid it? It is prevelant on every single photograph in the set which is rather disappointing :( The hair appears as noise on the sides of the face.

Dub

IMG_9468.jpg


IMG_9468-2.jpg
 
Was there any modifier/diffuser used or just a naked flash pointed directly at the subjects?
 
naked flash.. there was nothing to bounce off of and I can only do off camera flash indoors at the moment due to having an IR based transmitter that is not very effective outdoors. Also I didn't want to lug my portable softbox around with me.

Is this unavoidable with a naked flash then?
 
No, even 3/4 length shots suffered from it. I can see how it could happen with an unmodified light source and I guess. I was just a little surprised because I have not noticed it before. Definitely seems a bit odd to me.
 
What the flash is doing is giving you a single hard source of light, and your camera is snapping whatever is there. You would lessen the resulting issue if you enlarged the light source (bounce it off a wall or reflector)

Ultimately, if someone needs a wax / threading or shave, they just do
 
Hahaha the shaving/waxing/threading comments made me chuckle. Seriously though - that little girl whose nose I posted is really not hairy. Oh well, they will have to deal with it. Maybe I should open up a waxing salon. I can drum up my own business through photography.

As long as I am not doing anything 'wrong' I guess they will have to live with it.

Thanks guys,
Dub
 
Make up can exaggerate this too is it sticks to the hair and can be quite reflective (it is reflective to reduce the appearance of lines), looks like it has here too. Not that I know anything about make up :whistling:
 
dubcat said:
Hahaha the shaving/waxing/threading comments made me chuckle. Seriously though - that little girl whose nose I posted is really not hairy. Oh well, they will have to deal with it. Maybe I should open up a waxing salon. I can drum up my own business through photography.

As long as I am not doing anything 'wrong' I guess they will have to live with it.

Thanks guys,
Dub
Click to expand...

You don't even need to buy extra equipment, just use your speedlight!

http://www.thehairfacts.com/flash-lamp.htm
 
Print them at 8x10 and it probably won't be visible? Nobody should look at snaps with an onboard flash "helping" at 100% ... :)
 
Strappy said:
Were all the shots in question taken like this? Could be that you're so close to the subject, any and all detail (and blemishes) will be captured.
Click to expand...

I agree Dean, I have just taken a mixture of portrait shots of a young nephew, and decided to ditch all the close up flash shots because they were not at all flattering. I think that you get a "halo" effect around even the finest hair, and a very distinctive outline on veins and any imperfections. The natural light shots look much softer and better.
 
Subjects have to be lit up properly, and the hard direct on-camera flash is arguably the very worst way to do it. Light can make or break the photo and you need to set it up the right way.
 
As said above the lightig is poor which is the norm from direct flash from a camera's hotshoe. THe thing is it will hardly be noticed unless you zoom in so much. Pixel peeping is a waste of time.
 
What would have been the best (least cumbersome) way to light this while avoiding this effect? The scenario was a garden party at night.
 
Can you post one uncropped pic with EXIF info? Would give us a bit of an idea what you had to work with...
 
The shots are great considering the equipment, location, time of day and context

If you get the microscope out, you will always be disappointed. If it really worries you that much, edit in some negative clarity with a brush in lightroom
 
Richard that's really encouraging feedback! I had no idea whether the shots were 'ok' or not. Thanks.

To be honest the noise/hair doesn't bother me that much. I was keen to find out if I could avoid them but I don't care about them enough to spend hours in post processing.

Thanks again for looking.
Dub
 
dubcat said:
What would have been the best (least cumbersome) way to light this while avoiding this effect? The scenario was a garden party at night.
Click to expand...

OK, back to the very basics. f/2.8 or brighter, higher ISO, only fill flash if needed. The flash needs at least a stofen diffuser or a small softbox if you can't bounce it. Don't forget the walls, etc.

And remember - most people really hate to get flashed in the eyes in the dark so keep it to the minimum and diffuse it.
 
daugirdas said:
OK, back to the very basics. f/2.8 or brighter, higher ISO, only fill flash if needed. The flash needs at least a stofen diffuser or a small softbox if you can't bounce it. Don't forget the walls, etc.

And remember - most people really hate to get flashed in the eyes in the dark so keep it to the minimum and diffuse it.
Click to expand...

  • I find depth of field too shallow at f/2.8. My lens is a 17-55 so I am reasonably close to the subject. I was trying to avoid one eye being in focus and one out .. or one subject in and one subject out.
  • Higher ISO leads to noise in my experience, with the 50d. Especially when there is lots of flat black about. I was worried about pushing it past 400.
  • I removed my stofen because I can't understand what value it would add when there is literally nothing for it to bounce light off of. I figured all it would do would be to make my flash work harder as some of the light was being fired off in to outer space and other places.

Am I incorrect in the above?
 
dubcat said:
  • I find depth of field too shallow at f/2.8. My lens is a 17-55 so I am reasonably close to the subject. I was trying to avoid one eye being in focus and one out .. or one subject in and one subject out.
Click to expand...

  • At 2.8 and 55mm at normal shooting distances you'll bet printable shots of individuals, f5.6 will get you a couple.

    dubcat said:
    • Higher ISO leads to noise in my experience, with the 50d. Especially when there is lots of flat black about. I was worried about pushing it past 400.
    Click to expand...

    • As above with the focus and your other pixel peeping. This is photography, not microscopy, stop pixel peeping - start printing and see what you really like about your pictures, I have a 40d and it'll print 20" x 16" shot at 800 happily.
      dubcat said:
      • I removed my stofen because I can't understand what value it would add when there is literally nothing for it to bounce light off of. I figured all it would do would be to make my flash work harder as some of the light was being fired off in to outer space and other places.

      Am I incorrect in the above?
      Click to expand...
      The stofen will act a little like a bare bulb flash when pointed straight up - very wasteful but better than straight on flash. You should always look to bounce, or get the flash on a stand and fire it remotely.

      The issue is - is this a social occasion or a photoshoot? If it's a photoshoot you and your subject have to put some effort into getting a quality image - if it's a party - then all you can realistically aim for are the best 'snaps' you can get.
      The nearest you can get to unobtrusive and flattering is to put your speedlight on a stand and shoot it through an umbrella with a remote trigger. You'd have to carry it around and put it down at your side whilst shooting.
 
OK guys thanks very much. That does all make perfect sense. I need to print a bit more you are right. Thanks again for taking the time to post.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top