I need more light ...

[InfiniteLoopy]

Lenses retain value very well, so I wouldn't worry about getting a full frame lens or not. Get the focal length you need now, you can always sell it at minimal loss. Of the two lenses, I can't say anything about the Canon. I do own the Sigma and I like it. It's brighter than the Canon.

Typically, you always pay a price when it comes to lenses with a large initial aperture: they're more difficult to construct, more difficult to focus and so many more things can go wrong. Just nailing the focus will be hard: if you choose the wrong focal point, it'll show immediately. Aperture allows me to see the focus points so I can distinguish between me choosing the right focus point and an inaccurate focus of the lens.

Yes.

Not just camera shake, the motion of the subject is typically what you need to worry about the most. Even though the flash freezes the subject, you may still see an aura or a fuzzy outline. So you see, everything has its limitations.

OK thanks for the advice, but the Sigma got a bad review on photozone and I've read that some can't focus. Did you experience that?

Depends a lot on the subject and flash distance, but yes, typically you can.



Not as much as you need to worry about flash power- but you have to get off of any TTL mode and set the flash manually. Seriously, re-Google, read and experiment. It's not rocket science, but it's not automatic either. Settings will vary by subject and distance- but you don't need a tripod and you do need to get off of any automatic flash mode.

Paul

You have to look at is as TWO EXPOSURES on one frame.

1 - Set shutter speed for ambient light
2 - Set flash power to expose the subject

Do not confuse this with a double exposure because that is not what it is.

The idea is the SHUTTER SPEED allows Ambient Light to illuminate the room and the FLASH will illuminate the subject. You want as little flash as possible so that it illuminates only the subject.

Obviously the subject is close to the camera and not all the way across the room, if the subject were far away well you can guess the flash will light up the room.

This is all done MANUALLY - manually set the shutter for ambient light, then set the flash for the subject.

Practice with it, take a Manual Exposure of a room alone the once you have that set introduce a subject. With the camera in Manual set for the ambient take some flash exposures with the flash in Manual Mode, play with the flash power setting until you get the desired result.

After a while it will become second nature to you.

Thanks to all for the flash advice.
Now, if I understand correctly:
- Camera in manual mode: choose an exposure with a lower than normal shutter speed (is there a rule of thumb for this?) and make sure that the exposure gives the correct ambient light for the background.
- Switch flash to manual and reduce to minimum (1/64 in my case) then bounce it off wall or ceiling (what is usually the best direction?)

Is that more or less how it works?

 

[firestarter]

Thanks to all for the flash advice.
Now, if I understand correctly:
- Camera in manual mode: choose an exposure with a lower than normal shutter speed (is there a rule of thumb for this?) and make sure that the exposure gives the correct ambient light for the background.
- Switch flash to manual and reduce to minimum (1/64 in my case) then bounce it off wall or ceiling (what is usually the best direction?)

Is that more or less how it works?

That's about it. Experiment with this setup and see how you get on. TBH, you'll always need to experiment a bit to see which direction it's best to bounce.

Which flash do you have? If it does TTL with the Canon you can actually leave it on that, but set the flash exposure compensation to be (say) -3 stops. Don't confuse the flash exposure with the normal exposure compensation though.

 

[InfiniteLoopy]

Hi,

I have the 430EX II.
So you're saying to use the flash in EETL instead of manual?
Others in the thread have advised otherwise.

I'll experiment and see where I get, though is it normal that the histogram is nearly completely to the left only (dark)? It's as if it doesn't take the flash into account.

Also, how do I make sure the flash only lights the subject and not the background/ambient light?

I've learned a lot today! Thanks.

 

[firestarter]

You can use the flash either way.

The flash isn't going to add a lot of light at that setting - just bring up the shadows. The aim is to keep your main lighting as the room ambient lights.

If the histogram is off the left then you're underexposing the ambient and you need to adjust your exposure.

You'll also see some problems with the warmth of the room lights clashing with the cold light of the flash. Usually in this sort of situation you'd filter the flash to warm it up.

Personally, I prefer to just use ambient light - or to use a lot more flash than what these guys have advised. I'm not sure you'll get great results.

It's fun to experiment and learn though!

 

[InfiniteLoopy]

OK thanks.

I too would prefer to just use ambient light, as I prefer to photograph what I see rather than a modified version of it.

I don't quite understand what you mean though. Do you use either ambient or a lot of flash?

I guess I'll just have to test more.

 

[firestarter]

OK thanks.

I too would prefer to just use ambient light, as I prefer to photograph what I see rather than a modified version of it.

I don't quite understand what you mean though. Do you use either ambient or a lot of flash?

I guess I'll just have to test more.

If you use a lot of flash, your subject is well lit and sharp (flash has very short duration, so effectively your 'shutter speed' is high and you don't get camera shake). Trouble is that the camera will usually assume that all your light is coming from the flash, so will increase your shutter speed to cut the ambient. Result is very boring.

If you expose for the ambient, using manual with a long shutter speed - but also use the flash (either by experimenting with manual, or by dialing down the flash using flash compensation) then you end up with an interesting background as your ambient exposure is still there - but your foreground will be exposed somewhat by the flash so should be sharper.

Trouble is that you can end up with different colour casts off the different lights, and also faint sharp edges on stuff due to the short flash - plus some camera shake/blur due to the ambient.

The solution to this is to use a lot more flash - and multiple flash units to overwhelm the ambient light more and control the whole situation.

You really need to experiment to see these effects though. I'll let you go do that - since I'm sure it'll take you less time to find out than for me to type what I think!

 

[snberk103]

OK thanks.

I too would prefer to just use ambient light, as I prefer to photograph what I see rather than a modified version of it.

I don't quite understand what you mean though. Do you use either ambient or a lot of flash?

I guess I'll just have to test more.

Are you shooting at home, or are you shooting as you travel around?

Other ways to steady the camera (to use longer shutter speeds). Stand in doorway, turn the camera sideways, and hold it against the door frame.

Or brace it on the back of a chair. I've braced my camera in theatres (live performance, and I was shooting at the request of the performers!) on my knee. (Either in a seat, with my leg pulled up and putting my socked foot on the seat, or sitting on the floor in the aisle). I have a very slow lense on this camera, and iirc, it maxes out at 400 ISO. Camera shake is virtually non-existent at 1/30 at about 100mm. (However, this camera doesn't have a mirror so there is no mirror slap. I use this camera in the theatre because the only sound it makes is slight "snikk" when it fires. YMMV).

I hope you get my point about using whatever is available as a brace. Fill a ziploc bag 3/4 full of rice, and then you can put that on whatever, and use it to hold the camera - like a bean bag chair. You almost have enough light where you are shooting, with the tools you already have available, so you don't need to do much to get what you want.

The reason I asked about where you were shooting is because you may just need more candles. If you are finding it marginal with 2 candles on the table, then adding just 2 more candles doubles the amount of light, and allows you change the shutter speed from 1/15 to 1/30 (as an example). Going from 2 candles to 8 candles looks spectacular, and gives you two stops more light (1/15 to 1/60). For the money you save not buying a new lense or camera, you can buy a lot of candles, eh?

 

[compuwar]

You can use the flash either way.

The flash isn't going to add a lot of light at that setting - just bring up the shadows. The aim is to keep your main lighting as the room ambient lights.

If the histogram is off the left then you're underexposing the ambient and you need to adjust your exposure.

You'll also see some problems with the warmth of the room lights clashing with the cold light of the flash. Usually in this sort of situation you'd filter the flash to warm it up.

Personally, I prefer to just use ambient light - or to use a lot more flash than what these guys have advised. I'm not sure you'll get great results.

It's fun to experiment and learn though!

The idea of dragging the shutter is a little different than fill flash- fill flash is filling in the shadows and automatic modes are good for that- perhaps with a bit of negative flash compensation- but that's best used in good light to simply fill in the shadows. Dragging the shutter is balancing between flash and ambient lighting- so that you don't get the highly artificial looking flash- fill flash also doesn't give that overpowered look, but it's really not taking ambient lighting into as much account as dragging the shutter does.

OK thanks.

I too would prefer to just use ambient light, as I prefer to photograph what I see rather than a modified version of it.

I don't quite understand what you mean though. Do you use either ambient or a lot of flash?

I guess I'll just have to test more.

This is a mis-thought- what you "see" is way different than what you capture since your eye and brain compensate in ways that a still photograph usually doesn't- that's why a good shutter drag or even fill flash doesn't look unnatural, you're creating compensation for lighting that your eye does automatically in tune with your brain. That's the same reason that white balance is such an issue in digital photography and video- your eye/brain combo does things that don't translate to a straight capture.

Trouble is that you can end up with different colour casts off the different lights, and also faint sharp edges on stuff due to the short flash - plus some camera shake/blur due to the ambient.

The whole point in dragging the shutter is not to overpower the ambient light- white balancing will take care of any cast issues- either manual or often automatic white balance is fine- though generally I find myself adding a bit of warmth after balancing anyway- all casts aren't bad. Lack of sharpness isn't due to flash duration though, it's due to subject movement and distance from the flash, the farther away the subject is the less light from the flash the more the ambient exposure (which is slow when you're dragging) shows through. That's why it takes some practice to develop- the power you use for something 3' away is different than what you'd use for 15' away and for a static subject is different than for a moving subject.

Paul

 

[flosseR]

On the subject of flashing. I found myself shooting xmas photos and tried to keep the ambient light as good as possible. Candles, yellow xmas lights etc. Now, I can go pretty decently high in ISO with my camera and lens combo but I am a perfectionist and I like shooting at ISO 100/200. So I used my flash.
Please bear in mind that whatever surface you bounce your flash off, the color of the surface is reflected on the light you are generating. I found myself bouncing a lot off the ceiling (wood) instead of the white walls because the ambient light it generated was closer to the candles and the overall mood. If you tone the flash down you won't illuminate the whole room and you get a good atmospheric image. You can also color your flash with a gel or some transparent colored material (stalkings even) in order to achieve colors. The whole point is to keep the mood and with a white flash this MIGHT get destroyed or changed, but with a gel or other color compensator you can achieve results that noone would believe that they were shot with a flash.

just my 2c.

 

[firestarter]

The idea of dragging the shutter is a little different than fill flash- fill flash is filling in the shadows and automatic modes are good for that- perhaps with a bit of negative flash compensation- but that's best used in good light to simply fill in the shadows. Dragging the shutter is balancing between flash and ambient lighting- so that you don't get the highly artificial looking flash- fill flash also doesn't give that overpowered look, but it's really not taking ambient lighting into as much account as dragging the shutter does.

I don't think it's helpful to separate these two techniques and personally I don't like the phrase "dragging the shutter" (since it puts you in the mindset of overriding an SLR's automatic shutter selection - in manual mode the shutter speed is always YOUR choice). It's all about balancing flash and ambient - and the best way for the OP to proceed is to experiment and develop a natural feel for this technique.

Don't confuse the use of flash compensation with 'fill flash' either. Flash compensation and TTL often a better way of selecting flash power using on camera flash as TTL will maintain the subject illumination if you change your camera position whereas manual flash settings will not. I never use TTL for off-camera flash, but with off camera flash lighting can remain constant with changing camera position.

The whole point in dragging the shutter is not to overpower the ambient light- white balancing will take care of any cast issues- either manual or often automatic white balance is fine- though generally I find myself adding a bit of warmth after balancing anyway- all casts aren't bad. Lack of sharpness isn't due to flash duration though, it's due to subject movement and distance from the flash, the farther away the subject is the less light from the flash the more the ambient exposure (which is slow when you're dragging) shows through. That's why it takes some practice to develop- the power you use for something 3' away is different than what you'd use for 15' away and for a static subject is different than for a moving subject.

Paul, you will end up with white balancing issues if you use light sources with different colour temperatures and that isn't something you can fix in post. It's easy enough filtering flash with a warming filter and most flash units come with a tungsten gel.

Lack of sharpness of course comes from the ambient exposure and it's relative strength compared to the flash. I'm not sure quite why you're taking the trouble writing a paragraph to 'correct' me on this.

 

[OreoCookie]

OK thanks for the advice, but the Sigma got a bad review on photozone and I've read that some can't focus. Did you experience that?

So did the Canon which is less solidly built and has a smaller initial aperture. To me it's a question of alternatives: are there any better alternatives that are within my price-range? Unless you want to spend $$$$ on the 35 mm f/1.4 L, I don't see any alternatives on the table. Stop being concerned and start taking pictures! If the photo is good, nobody will tell you that there is very low resolution in the corners or something.

To answer your question: no, the lens doesn't have a front or a backfocus or so (which is what I think you're referring to).* I do have problems choosing the right focus points and with motion of the subject. That's a much, much more significant problem when you're taking pictures wide-open. If you focus on the nose or the chin instead of the the eyes, the eyes tend to be out of focus again. That's not a problem with the lens, but a `problem' of shallow depth of field. I'm still working on nailing that.

In my experience, the Sigma is very sharp in the center. The decrease in resolution towards the corners usually doesn't matter as your subject(s) cluster in the center. Then the decrease in resolution adds to the bokeh if you wish. One characteristic, though, is the low contrast compared to my best lens (80-200 mm f/2.8). But that's something that can be addressed in post-processing.

* Any large aperture lens can have front or backfocus problems. I've heard from a friend that Canon offers free one-time calibration with L lenses: you send in your body and your lens and they'll calibrate the pair. He did it with all of his lenses, but he's kind of a stickler when it comes to IQ, so it's not necessarily indicative of a problem of Canon L lenses.

- Camera in manual mode: choose an exposure with a lower than normal shutter speed (is there a rule of thumb for this?) and make sure that the exposure gives the correct ambient light for the background.

There is no rule of thumb. I would set the exposure without flash to somewhere close to the ambient light (so that the photo taken without flash of the background looks `normally exposed.' Typically, I dial it down by 1/2-1 EV to maintain attention to the subject. With digital cameras, things are relatively easy: just take a few shots without flash until get the exposure you want. Then switch on the flash and regulate the power until it is where you want it to be.

- Switch flash to manual and reduce to minimum (1/64 in my case) then bounce it off wall or ceiling (what is usually the best direction?)

You'll hate the answer, because there is only one answer: it depends. It depends primarily on the effect you want to see in the photo, on the architecture, on the color of the ceiling, on the distance to the subject, etc. etc. etc. And then there is the wealth of possibilities that open up when you take the flash off the camera (although that's not as cheap as with Nikon systems)

There is a learning curve and I've yet to come close to mastering flash photography.

 

[G.T.]

Do you shoot RAW? You can gain some information back this way.

 

[InfiniteLoopy]

firestarter / compuwar:
Thanks for the detailed responses but I'm a bit confused with your discussion of fill flash vs dragging the shutter and whether I should buy gels or not ... I appreciate that you both have different techniques but are you achieving the same thing?
I'm also unsure as to whether you recommend ETTL or manual flash.

Are you shooting at home, or are you shooting as you travel around?

At home. I don't have a problem outside, it's specifically in the evening at home, where I always struggle to get an exposure, even at f/1.4 and ISO 1600.
To be honest, I prefer underexposed to overexposed but would also like to have the option to shoot properly exposed at lower ISO, ideally without flash.

This is a mis-thought- what you "see" is way different than what you capture since your eye and brain compensate in ways that a still photograph usually doesn't- that's why a good shutter drag or even fill flash doesn't look unnatural, you're creating compensation for lighting that your eye does automatically in tune with your brain. That's the same reason that white balance is such an issue in digital photography and video- your eye/brain combo does things that don't translate to a straight capture.


Paul

Very informative thanks. I always shoot in AWB and then adjust if necessary in Aperture 3 with the eyedrop tool.

On the subject of flashing. I found myself shooting xmas photos and tried to keep the ambient light as good as possible. Candles, yellow xmas lights etc. Now, I can go pretty decently high in ISO with my camera and lens combo but I am a perfectionist and I like shooting at ISO 100/200. So I used my flash.
Please bear in mind that whatever surface you bounce your flash off, the color of the surface is reflected on the light you are generating. I found myself bouncing a lot off the ceiling (wood) instead of the white walls because the ambient light it generated was closer to the candles and the overall mood. If you tone the flash down you won't illuminate the whole room and you get a good atmospheric image. You can also color your flash with a gel or some transparent colored material (stalkings even) in order to achieve colors. The whole point is to keep the mood and with a white flash this MIGHT get destroyed or changed, but with a gel or other color compensator you can achieve results that noone would believe that they were shot with a flash.

just my 2c.

Some rooms have white ceilings (ideal) but some have wood and that creates a reddish cast. In those case, I try and bounce off a white wall. Would a flash diffuser help in those cases, as it's white and I could bounce off ceiling?

So did the Canon which is less solidly built and has a smaller initial aperture. To me it's a question of alternatives: are there any better alternatives that are within my price-range? Unless you want to spend $$$$ on the 35 mm f/1.4 L, I don't see any alternatives on the table. Stop being concerned and start taking pictures! If the photo is good, nobody will tell you that there is very low resolution in the corners or something.

To answer your question: no, the lens doesn't have a front or a backfocus or so (which is what I think you're referring to).* I do have problems choosing the right focus points and with motion of the subject. That's a much, much more significant problem when you're taking pictures wide-open. If you focus on the nose or the chin instead of the the eyes, the eyes tend to be out of focus again. That's not a problem with the lens, but a `problem' of shallow depth of field. I'm still working on nailing that.

In my experience, the Sigma is very sharp in the center. The decrease in resolution towards the corners usually doesn't matter as your subject(s) cluster in the center. Then the decrease in resolution adds to the bokeh if you wish. One characteristic, though, is the low contrast compared to my best lens (80-200 mm f/2.8). But that's something that can be addressed in post-processing.

* Any large aperture lens can have front or backfocus problems. I've heard from a friend that Canon offers free one-time calibration with L lenses: you send in your body and your lens and they'll calibrate the pair. He did it with all of his lenses, but he's kind of a stickler when it comes to IQ, so it's not necessarily indicative of a problem of Canon L lenses.

There is no rule of thumb. I would set the exposure without flash to somewhere close to the ambient light (so that the photo taken without flash of the background looks `normally exposed.' Typically, I dial it down by 1/2-1 EV to maintain attention to the subject. With digital cameras, things are relatively easy: just take a few shots without flash until get the exposure you want. Then switch on the flash and regulate the power until it is where you want it to be.

You'll hate the answer, because there is only one answer: it depends. It depends primarily on the effect you want to see in the photo, on the architecture, on the color of the ceiling, on the distance to the subject, etc. etc. etc. And then there is the wealth of possibilities that open up when you take the flash off the camera (although that's not as cheap as with Nikon systems)

There is a learning curve and I've yet to come close to mastering flash photography.

True, the Canon didn't get a good review on that site also.
I'm just hesitant to buy a lens which didn't have a good review. Though I think that they conduct their tests in labs which don't take real world photography into account.

I don't quite get what you mean by the front and backfocus. Are you saying that the Sigma is lacking this, and that's a bad thing?

Do you shoot RAW? You can gain some information back this way.

Always Raw.

 

[firestarter]

firestarter / compuwar:
Thanks for the detailed responses but I'm a bit confused with your discussion of fill flash vs dragging the shutter and whether I should buy gels or not ... I appreciate that you both have different techniques but are you achieving the same thing?
I'm also unsure as to whether you recommend ETTL or manual flash.

What I'm saying is that fill flash vs dragging the shutter is so similar that it DOES become confusing if you treat them differently. They're just variations of mixing flash and ambient light! Best to experiment and see what different proportions of flash and ambient look like.

I really recommend the book "Light; Science and Magic". It discusses all this in clear detail with good examples and diagrams.

Don't get too hung up on colour balancing for now. Suffice to say that flash light is quite white/blue while domestic light bulbs are a lot warmer. If you take a shot using both light sources and colour correct in Lightroom for the flash light, then the background ambient can seem quite orange (which can look good!). Conversely, making the ambient lit stuff 'normal' in Aperture can make the flash lit stuff look blue. To correct this you can put a filter on the flash - but you should experiment first and see whether you find it a problem.

Remember that if it looks good, it IS good - so don't be afraid to experiment.

 

[OreoCookie]

True, the Canon didn't get a good review on that site also.
I'm just hesitant to buy a lens which didn't have a good review. Though I think that they conduct their tests in labs which don't take real world photography into account.

If there was another option out there with much better optical performance and similar specs and price, I'd say go for that. To be honest, I wouldn't worry too much about it. Some people are ingrained with marketing, thinking that this may damage their camera or something. Canon users in particular overemphasize the importance of the L, there are plenty of excellent (Canon and third-party lenses) that haven't been officially blessed.

I don't quite get what you mean by the front and backfocus. Are you saying that the Sigma is lacking this, and that's a bad thing?

It's a good thing if your lenses lack these `features'
Frontfocus is when the focal plane chosen by the lens is consistently in front of the subject (i. e. closer to the camera) than what the AF sensor sees. Similarly, backfocus means that the focal plane is consistently behind the subject. Typically, this is only relevant for expensive lenses with a small depth of field, you just won't notice this on cheap kit lenses. On modern and more expensive bodies, the user can calibrate the AF system on a per lens basis. In the past, you would have to give the lens and the body to service and have them calibrate it.

Front- and backfocussing issues are less pronounced if the lens manufacturer has good quality control, but for the last bit of performance, you actually need to calibrate it. (That's why Canon offers a free one-time calibration with L lenses, I suppose.) Third-party manufacturers tend to save on quality control for their cheaper lenses (Sigma, for instance, makes $$$$ and $$$$$ lenses, there, lack of quality control is not really an issue). If you select lenses carefully and you have the right to exchange the lens, you're safe. Two of my five lenses are third-party lenses and I have owned others in the past. I've never had any problems.

 

[Artful Dodger]

A bunch of good stuff going on in here and just to add, my painting professer once said to me, you know how to get to Carnegie Hall? Practice…
Every day while we painted still life in almost darkness he worked on his photo skills, boring? At times as it was only a jar of pickles, a potato, a red pepper and two candles but if we could make that interesting everything else could be as well. Also it helped with low light or ambient lighting. So I'm sure you have been practicing a bunch with some still life in the settings you wish to hone your skills at as much as possible.

Here is a photo taken from my friends wedding in a room which relied mostly on ambient light and a ton of candles (by request from the bride and groom). I also attached the info for you to see what some others are saying about shutter, flash and so on. This is from a Canon P&S and I forgot to raise the flash while dragging the shutter (I had the flash set to minimum and don't laugh, an amber file tag ready to go over the flash to add some warmth) but after my mistake, or not now, this one I was glad I didn't use the flash and just asked the table to move slow for a few moments while I captured a few more photo's to give it an old world look since the reception was in the upper level at a Micro Brewery with tall ceilings and as you can see a few big windows for the only natural light.
Hope this helps…

Image-Specific Properties:

Image Orientation: Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution: 72 dpi
Vertical Resolution: 72 dpi
Image Created: 2010:10:15 05:26:13
Exposure Time: 1/10 sec
F-Number: f/4.0
ISO Speed Rating: 400
Lens Aperture: f/4.0
Exposure Bias: 0 EV
Metering Mode: Pattern
Flash: No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length: 16.10 mm
Color Space Information: sRGB
Image Width: 3520
Image Height: 2640
Rendering: Normal
Exposure Mode: Manual
White Balance: Auto
Scene Capture Type: Standard

 

[InfiniteLoopy]

What I'm saying is that fill flash vs dragging the shutter is so similar that it DOES become confusing if you treat them differently. They're just variations of mixing flash and ambient light! Best to experiment and see what different proportions of flash and ambient look like.

I really recommend the book "Light; Science and Magic". It discusses all this in clear detail with good examples and diagrams.

Don't get too hung up on colour balancing for now. Suffice to say that flash light is quite white/blue while domestic light bulbs are a lot warmer. If you take a shot using both light sources and colour correct in Lightroom for the flash light, then the background ambient can seem quite orange (which can look good!). Conversely, making the ambient lit stuff 'normal' in Aperture can make the flash lit stuff look blue. To correct this you can put a filter on the flash - but you should experiment first and see whether you find it a problem.

Remember that if it looks good, it IS good - so don't be afraid to experiment.

OK, I will experiment a little later. Thanks for all your tips.
I guess what bothers me is that even at the max ISO, with f/1.4, I'm still underexposing for anything handheld in ambient light, then, when I try the flash at -3, bouncing it behind me, it just fills everything ...
But as I said, I will try again later.

If there was another option out there with much better optical performance and similar specs and price, I'd say go for that. To be honest, I wouldn't worry too much about it. Some people are ingrained with marketing, thinking that this may damage their camera or something. Canon users in particular overemphasize the importance of the L, there are plenty of excellent (Canon and third-party lenses) that haven't been officially blessed.

It's a good thing if your lenses lack these `features'
Frontfocus is when the focal plane chosen by the lens is consistently in front of the subject (i. e. closer to the camera) than what the AF sensor sees. Similarly, backfocus means that the focal plane is consistently behind the subject. Typically, this is only relevant for expensive lenses with a small depth of field, you just won't notice this on cheap kit lenses. On modern and more expensive bodies, the user can calibrate the AF system on a per lens basis. In the past, you would have to give the lens and the body to service and have them calibrate it.

Front- and backfocussing issues are less pronounced if the lens manufacturer has good quality control, but for the last bit of performance, you actually need to calibrate it. (That's why Canon offers a free one-time calibration with L lenses, I suppose.) Third-party manufacturers tend to save on quality control for their cheaper lenses (Sigma, for instance, makes $$$$ and $$$$$ lenses, there, lack of quality control is not really an issue). If you select lenses carefully and you have the right to exchange the lens, you're safe. Two of my five lenses are third-party lenses and I have owned others in the past. I've never had any problems.

Thanks. I'm not in any rush, and I've read that 2011 is when Canon is releasing quite a few new lenses. But if that doesn't happen, I'll seriously consider the Sigma. I just hope I won't have to return it if it's faulty.

A bunch of good stuff going on in here and just to add, my painting professer once said to me, you know how to get to Carnegie Hall? Practice…
Every day while we painted still life in almost darkness he worked on his photo skills, boring? At times as it was only a jar of pickles, a potato, a red pepper and two candles but if we could make that interesting everything else could be as well. Also it helped with low light or ambient lighting. So I'm sure you have been practicing a bunch with some still life in the settings you wish to hone your skills at as much as possible.

Here is a photo taken from my friends wedding in a room which relied mostly on ambient light and a ton of candles (by request from the bride and groom). I also attached the info for you to see what some others are saying about shutter, flash and so on. This is from a Canon P&S and I forgot to raise the flash while dragging the shutter (I had the flash set to minimum and don't laugh, an amber file tag ready to go over the flash to add some warmth) but after my mistake, or not now, this one I was glad I didn't use the flash and just asked the table to move slow for a few moments while I captured a few more photo's to give it an old world look since the reception was in the upper level at a Micro Brewery with tall ceilings and as you can see a few big windows for the only natural light.
Hope this helps…

Image-Specific Properties:

Image Orientation: Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution: 72 dpi
Vertical Resolution: 72 dpi
Image Created: 2010:10:15 05:26:13
Exposure Time: 1/10 sec
F-Number: f/4.0
ISO Speed Rating: 400
Lens Aperture: f/4.0
Exposure Bias: 0 EV
Metering Mode: Pattern
Flash: No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length: 16.10 mm
Color Space Information: sRGB
Image Width: 3520
Image Height: 2640
Rendering: Normal
Exposure Mode: Manual
White Balance: Auto
Scene Capture Type: Standard

Nice pic, thanks.
It's great you can handhold 1/10s.

 

[jackerin]

I guess what bothers me is that even at the max ISO, with f/1.4, I'm still underexposing for anything handheld in ambient light, then, when I try the flash at -3, bouncing it behind me, it just fills everything ...

Ambient light is tricky, because even though it's enough light for the eye it's really bordering on the impossible for most cameras (depending on model). For example Stanley Kubrick used an f/0.7 lens filming the candle-lit scenes of Barry Lyndon.

 

[compuwar]

I don't think it's helpful to separate these two techniques and personally I don't like the phrase "dragging the shutter" (since it puts you in the mindset of overriding an SLR's automatic shutter selection - in manual mode the shutter speed is always YOUR choice). It's all about balancing flash and ambient - and the best way for the OP to proceed is to experiment and develop a natural feel for this technique.

For me, the distinction is that if I'm shooting for fill with a single on-camera light, I'm in matrix balanced fill flash mode with some compensation dialed in (that is, the camera is doing all the work except deciding how much compensation to subtract) while if I'm dragging the shutter, I'm in manual mode setting both the shutter speed and flash power myself. The intent of each is different- one is to increase the ambient exposure in the background, the other is to take away some shadow from the subject, so for me it seems perfectly logical to differentiate.

Don't confuse the use of flash compensation with 'fill flash' either. Flash compensation and TTL often a better way of selecting flash power using on camera flash as TTL will maintain the subject illumination if you change your camera position whereas manual flash settings will not. I never use TTL for off-camera flash, but with off camera flash lighting can remain constant with changing camera position.

Yes, but what we are discussing here is the OP's wish to get more natural-looking flash, which generally means either dragging the shutter or balanced fill. Off-camera flash only remains constant if the subject's position is relatively constant. Put strobes up at an event- like a wedding dance floor and you're still going to have to deal with different power levels- but then I know very few people who rely on TTL for flash under anything but "grip and grin" circumstances- obviously you're using TTL a lot more often than I or most folks I know do.

Paul, you will end up with white balancing issues if you use light sources with different colour temperatures and that isn't something you can fix in post. It's easy enough filtering flash with a warming filter and most flash units come with a tungsten gel.

In my experience, if it's only two sources balancing it out in post is relatively easy- especially since the main subject tends to be done with the flash when you're dragging the shutter so you only really have issues if you've got a mix of background background, and even then if it's that and flash it's not a biggie. Worst situation I've ever shot in was florescents, flash, daylight, sodium and tungsten mixed- gelling the flash head really wouldn't have helped much- and unfortunately the publisher was supposed to edit and didn't. I find that 95+% of the time if it's two sources, I can white balance in post fairly quickly and get acceptable results. Again, YMMV.

Lack of sharpness of course comes from the ambient exposure and it's relative strength compared to the flash. I'm not sure quite why you're taking the trouble writing a paragraph to 'correct' me on this.

"Short flash" indicates duration- I think it's important to be accurate when talking about the effects of various settings- and flash duration does to some extent affect "sharpness," in that a shorter value will expose less movement in a subject- but for images inside the typical house flash duration isn't going to make a difference, and even for most sports the typical flash's duration is short enough to freeze most action- it's really when we get to high-speed photography that flash duration starts to have a significant impact on the image itself. More importantly- the phrase "due to the short flash" seems to indicate that a shorter duration makes things blurry when it's actually the opposite- a longer duration exposes more movement, so more blur- not a big deal if you and I are talking, but a potential hole for the OP who's not versed in how things work.

I second the recommendation for Light: Science and Magic, just don't lend it out-- I need to get my fourth copy next.

Paul

 

[compuwar]

firestarter / compuwar:
Thanks for the detailed responses but I'm a bit confused with your discussion of fill flash vs dragging the shutter and whether I should buy gels or not ... I appreciate that you both have different techniques but are you achieving the same thing?
I'm also unsure as to whether you recommend ETTL or manual flash.

Fill flash is using flash as an axillary lighting source to fill in the shadows of your subject. Dragging the shutter is balancing ambient and flash exposure to more heavily favor ambient than would be typical with flash and typically the focus is on the background, not the subject. Outdoors in natural light, you want fill flash in most circumstances, indoors you want to be dragging the shutter.

A half or full CTO for balancing your flash's light with incandescent tungsten filament lights is good to have[1], and relatively cheap-- plus when you're shooting in daylight, you can use it to warm your fill up (though I'm starting to prefer a CTS,)

The good news is that you can go the Strobist route and order the Lee filter kit samples pretty cheaply and get a bunch of small gels (more than you'll ever use) that'll tape over a flash gun's head easily.

For usage, see:

http://www.skategoat.com/guide-to-flash-gels

For purchase, see:

http://www.screen-shade.com/leefidenuswb.html

Paul
[1] A full CTO will fully balance, but sometimes you want your subject to stand out a bit so experiment to see which look you prefer.

 

[Edge100]

My $0.02...

It seems that the problem you're having with flash is that you're flooding the room with light. IMHO, what you should be aiming for with bounce flash is light that is both soft AND directional.

A lot of people throw a Sto-Fen on their flash and point it at the ceiling, and then wonder why their photos look so one dimensional. Sure, it's a lot better than direct flash, but on-camera bounced flash can absolutely look MUCH better than that.

I would suggest reading everything you can at Neil van Niekerk's 'Tangents' blog (www.neilvn.com); Neil is the king of on-camera flash. He uses a simple black foam card to flag the on-camera flash such that the only light hitting the subject is the bounced flash. This gives light that is soft and directional.

Furthermore, if the ambient light hitting your subject is low enough, you don't really have to worry about camera shake at low shutter speeds; the flash exposure will take care of that.

The bottom line is that there's no reason you cannot get excellent results using a fast prime at f/1.4 and an appropriately modified on-camera flash at ISO1600, or even ISO800. Just remember that the purpose of a flash is not merely to increase the quantity of light, but also to improve the quality of light. Simply bouncing into the ceiling or off a wall will give you lots of light, but that often comes without any directionality.

 

[InfiniteLoopy]

Hi all,

So I did some tests by using the "drag the shutter" technique I read in a Scott Kelby book. It's basically the same as what's been previously said here, but he says to put camera in P mode (Program), note the aperture suggested, then enter it in manual mode (with shutter speed at 1/15s). He doesn't say anything about lowering the flash power but in ETTL at -2, my initial tests seem OK, in that they just provide a little moody light on the subject, which is how I like it. The camera says it's underexposed, and I suppose that technically it is, but at least it's not full flash, which I don't like.
I'll try some more tests later, with the flash in manual.

He also mentions rear sync. Should I be using that too?

Also, thanks for the book recommendation firestarter and compuwar.

 

[InfiniteLoopy]

Hello all,

Just wanted to update a bit.
I've started to use the flash with various compensations and am getting good lighting results. I still prefer no flash at all but understand that in some cases, it's necessary.
Thanks for all the advice and best wishes to you all for 2011.

 

[soLoredd]

My $0.02...

It seems that the problem you're having with flash is that you're flooding the room with light. IMHO, what you should be aiming for with bounce flash is light that is both soft AND directional.

A lot of people throw a Sto-Fen on their flash and point it at the ceiling, and then wonder why their photos look so one dimensional. Sure, it's a lot better than direct flash, but on-camera bounced flash can absolutely look MUCH better than that.

I would suggest reading everything you can at Neil van Niekerk's 'Tangents' blog (www.neilvn.com); Neil is the king of on-camera flash. He uses a simple black foam card to flag the on-camera flash such that the only light hitting the subject is the bounced flash. This gives light that is soft and directional.

Furthermore, if the ambient light hitting your subject is low enough, you don't really have to worry about camera shake at low shutter speeds; the flash exposure will take care of that.

The bottom line is that there's no reason you cannot get excellent results using a fast prime at f/1.4 and an appropriately modified on-camera flash at ISO1600, or even ISO800. Just remember that the purpose of a flash is not merely to increase the quantity of light, but also to improve the quality of light. Simply bouncing into the ceiling or off a wall will give you lots of light, but that often comes without any directionality.

Finally, someone mentions Neil's website. Dude is a genius when it comes to using flash and still maintaining a natural look. I've read his website for the past year and a half religously and learned so much from using flash in ways I never thought of.