Some examples of flash pictures comparing built in to external gun

D

Dave Pickett

Messages
992
Name
Dave Pickett
Edit My Images
Yes
I have just purchased a new SB600 flash gun, and have been getting used to it, mainly taking pretty pointless stuff, but hey we all need to learn!

I thought others might be interested in how much difference a decent flash can make, so I took a short series of shots. Camera was D60 on Program. shot on RAW but no editing, just straight "save for the web"

Shot 1 using the cameras own built in flash:
on-camera-built-in-flash.jpg


mmm not very well lit, I'm sure we've all seen photos like that! so lets put the SB600 on, no adjustments just let the camera do it all....
SB600.jpg


Now lets put a small diffuser on the flash, (about £4 from ebay, similay to the stofen)

SB600.jpg



Better, more even light, but lets now try a 45 degree bounce off the ceiling, no diffuser:

SB600-bounced.jpg


And finally lets add the diffuser and bounce the flash:

SB600-bounce-plus-diffuser.jpg


Hope these demonstrate how much better the external flash is, especially when bounced. (and hope its not too basic for guys on this site!)
 
Always good to see Dave and even more obvious when used on people.

Thanks for taking the time to post them ;)
 
You've just sold it to me, external flash is gonna be a quick purhase me thinks. :)
 

Remember when bouncing onto people you'll need a reflector below as well, or you'll get bad shadows in the eyes and under the chin, also you may want to overexpose by 1/2-1 stop as you,ll lose light from the ceiling.
 
The picture steadily get better, great for showing people the benefit without much explaination
 
Very useful post, I can't stand the results I get with the onboard flash, this certainly shows the difference even to a dilbert like me!! Thank you.
 
Excellent post and clearly shows the differences. Hmmm, need to get one of them diffusers... I've seen comments about using a milk carton, might have to have a play.
 
all of these shots look underexposed!
 
awp said:
all of these shots look underexposed!
Click to expand...
Yep but only by a stop. Bit of adjustment and they'll be A-OK. I reckon the flash maybe needs +1 of power adjustment.

When these examples are done it just brings back to you how much difference little changes can make.
 
sque1ch said:

Remember when bouncing onto people you'll need a reflector below as well, or you'll get bad shadows in the eyes and under the chin, also you may want to overexpose by 1/2-1 stop as you,ll lose light from the ceiling.
Click to expand...

you'll need a reflector below as well

Soz - but I disagree with that bit - at least where the diffuser is also used and you're not stood right next to them

you may want to overexpose by 1/2-1 stop as you,ll lose light from the ceiling.

Soz - but I don't get this bit - unless you mean shooting in manual flash mode :shrug: The usual auto flash (iTTL or eTTL - depending on if you have a 'proper' camera or not ;)) will compensate for the increased flash-to-subject distance :)

DD
 
sorry - I don't see the point of publishing these when they are underexposed - it makes the differences the OP was so keen to show less obvious.
 
Brilliant - thanks for these. Really shows the difference.

Was thinking of getting an external flash - you've just made my mind up!
 
sorry - I don't see the point of publishing these when they are underexposed - it makes the differences the OP was so keen to show less obvious.
Click to expand...

The whole point was to show the straight out of camera shots...........I deliberately made no attempt to correct any aspect of the shots as stated in the intro. Each to their own!
 
Dave Pickett, think he's just miffed because he hasn't got a garage full of random stuff (and a mini) :)
 
I don't think they show anything - except poor technique.
 
I don't think they show anything - except poor technique.
Click to expand...

Andrew, you are just too kind!

Oh and yes the technique is poor, I just stood in the garage door and took the series of photos....it demonstrated to me the difference between the inbuilt camera flash, external and bounce etc.....which was all I was after


Still at least the other posters found it useful!!!
 
There's always one.
 
Borats Baby said:
Are you saying then, that picture 1 looks exactly the same as picture 4 ?
Click to expand...

of course not - but the pics would have been a lot more useful I would have thought if they'd been better executed and correctly exposed. Sorry if that upsets - but that's the way I see it.

It's not even a fair comparison as it's perfectly possible to get good shots with the built in flash - or direct flash on camera - although bounce is almost always better.
 
awp said:
of course not - but the pics would have been a lot more useful I would have thought if they'd been better executed and correctly exposed. Sorry if that upsets - but that's the way I see it.

It's not even a fair comparison as it's perfectly possible to get good shots with the built in flash - or direct flash on camera - although bounce is almost always better.
Click to expand...


Does that translate as "these shots would be far better if the op had hired a pro to take them for him" ? :LOL:
 
no it doesn't! :p but now you mention it ;)
 
The photos clearly show the difference between on camera flash and a separate flash gun.

They do appear to be underexposed, but then an explanation for that should be given. Being a Canon user I could explain the reason easily, but I was under the impression that Nikon's system didn't suffer the same, but the photos prove otherwise.

Ettl flash. The camera reads the light received from a pre-flash and then does some wonderful calculations with the ambient light, the flash gun, and built in algorithms to decide when to cut the flash for the perfect exposure! Now consider that these algorithms are based on the flash lighting a subject near the camera (obvious really as no flash is going to light a landscape at night) that is where the problem arises.

Near to the camera are 4 headlights, a windscreen, a highly reflective number plate, 2 white bonnet stripes and a chromed grill. They are mainly in the centre of the photos where the focusing and evaluative readings are taken from. So the flash is being bounced back by these highly reflective surfaces and the clever bits in the ettl metering are being confused thinking this scene is brighter than it actually is and thus the flash exposure is cut producing under exposed images.

FEC (flash exposure compensation) would be required to reduce this problem.

So though the technique is slightly out the original poster does admit to just 'taking some pretty pointless stuff' to show a difference in built in and separate flash which is clearly demonstrated in the photos.

Likewise they also show that ettl isn't perfect, in fact a better learning experience is to look at the photos without the explanations and work out what is going on. The underexposure does help to show when the number plate is being hit directly by light from the flash gun.
 
Not very good pictures.
Excellent demonstration of flash differences.
Thank you
( I have a strip of carpet in my garage as well :D)
 
( I have a strip of carpet in my garage as well )
Click to expand...

But mine is fully carpeted with carpet tiles gained free from work! And I have another Mini outside, the other one in these much criticised (but appreciated by many!) photos has covered only 8000 miles from new.

Riviwalker, thanks for your constructive and helpful response, appreciated. As an aside only the flash lit these shots the garage lights were off, which I think exagerates the effect
 
did you buy a mini because you couldn't get anything else in there:D

the pictures illustrate the difference between on camera and external flash to me, while technically not great they do show the guys with no idea about flash (me) the difference so in that respect they achieve their aim IMO
 
probably the flash being pointed upwards

having said that it's on the in camera flash ones too
 
Now that's the garage of a Detailing World forum member! (Except for the item placed on the roof)

I think most will agree that the OP has demonstrated what he set out to do rather nicely. And thanks to others' assistance will be in a position to improve upon what were described as simply shot snaps, not calculated and well set-up shots. I think that everyone will agree that the SB600 is a fantastic improvement over the somewhat basic pop-up. I find that I only use my pop-up now to trigger my SB600.

Good on you for posting Dave (y)
 
awp said:
I don't think they show anything - except poor technique.
Click to expand...

Thanks for posting the photos they do help people regardless of what some posters and egomaniacs on this forum think.

I cannot understand why anyone would bother to say anything like the above, the OP has set out to show something and done it:clap:
 
Dave Pickett said:
SB600-bounce-plus-diffuser.jpg
Click to expand...


Dave, as an aside, do you or have you ever taken part in the Mini Fun Run that's held in North Devon each August Bank Holiday in aid of the Children's Hospice. I know drivers bring their Mini's from all over the country just to take part. Last year they set a new record apparently of 300 Mini's in convoy along the A39 (caused bloody chaos mind you).

(oh, and for what it's worth I too think your pictures achieve what you set out to achieve).
 
Now that's the garage of a Detailing World forum member! (Except for the item placed on the roof)
Click to expand...

Yes thats the new hood for the Mazda, which is currently squeezed into the garage minus its old hood. In my defence I must say that there is a sheet of cardboard between that and the Mini roof!

Oh if I repeat the experiment with the Nissin gun, there would at least be a picture of a different car to be criticised!!!

Steve,

I've done a number of Mini runs (I have another mini, K reg 1293 morspeed etc known as the hooligan) the Cooper has done 8000 miles and rarely goes out of the garage. Havnt done the Devon one and dont really fancy sitting in traffioc jams so probably wont! Always attend the London - Brighton run, but again dont actually do the run!

In September I do help out with Minis by the sea, which is aid of our local Hospice, Chestnut tree and St Barnabas. Was cancelled last year (waterlogged) but previously around £3000 was raised.

All,

I have recently bought a second flash gun (Nissin Di622) and was going to post a review, comparing it to the Nikon but in light of some of the comments have delayed this. Anyone interested in a review of this gun? it is a viable alternative to the mfrs own ones and at £100, economically priced.

To the majority,thanks for the encouragement, glad the post has been helpful.
 
Hey Dave, it's a forum... take some comments with a pinch of salt. Post away, many will be interested, myself included. As with all forums, some people comment just to raise comment. Let those just roll off ;)
 
Having never used an external flash or seen a comparison done before I found your review extremely useful.... Thanks Dave (y)
 
Did you buy a mini just to demonstrate to us how good your new flash is?

That is real dedication :)

Despite what some people think there is a wide difference in ability, knowledge and technique and it can be really useful to post stuff that might be considered obvious etc. You have clearly demonstrated that it is much better to use an external flash and that it is also much better (in this situation) to bounce it off the ceiling. You have also demonstrated the difference the diffuser makes and this is of obvious benefit to others too. All in al I think this is a useful post.

Yes you can get it better with some tinkering but the last shot is clearly better anyway so would produce a better shot after tinkering.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top