Indoor shot's , Help!!

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by joe, Aug 2, 2004.

  1. joe

    joe Guest

    I have just bought a canon G5,canon 420ex flash unit and a stofen
    omnibounce diffuser.I will be taking some indoor pictures at a family
    gathering in a week's time,can anyone advise me on the best approach
    ie; should i use bounce or not(18 foot high cream ceiling)or just
    point the flash straight at people using the diffuser.Also is it
    better to stand in one position and use the zoom to get closer to
    people or should i physically get closer regarding the flash.

    Thanks,

    Joe
    joe, Aug 2, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. joe

    Jeff Guest

    Try a few and see what happens. That is the great thing about digital --
    instant feedback. My guess is that 18 feet is a long ways to bounce
    considering it will have to travel 36 feet (up and down).

    Jeff


    "joe" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I have just bought a canon G5,canon 420ex flash unit and a stofen
    > omnibounce diffuser.I will be taking some indoor pictures at a family
    > gathering in a week's time,can anyone advise me on the best approach
    > ie; should i use bounce or not(18 foot high cream ceiling)or just
    > point the flash straight at people using the diffuser.Also is it
    > better to stand in one position and use the zoom to get closer to
    > people or should i physically get closer regarding the flash.
    >
    > Thanks,
    >
    > Joe
    Jeff, Aug 2, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. joe

    Luke Webber Guest

    Jeff wrote:

    > Try a few and see what happens. That is the great thing about digital --
    > instant feedback. My guess is that 18 feet is a long ways to bounce
    > considering it will have to travel 36 feet (up and down).


    Considerably more than that, actually. 36' would be if the flash was
    pointing straight up.

    Luke
    Luke Webber, Aug 3, 2004
    #3
  4. joe

    Michael Guest

    On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 10:50:02 +1000, Luke Webber <>,
    wrote the following in rec.photo.digital:

    > 36' would be if the flash was pointing straight up.


    Given the specified 18' ceiling, it would be a 36' roundtrip if the flash
    were pointing straight up and the flash/subject were at the level of the
    floor.

    Since the flash is more likely to be 5' or so above floor level, and the
    human subject's face is also likely a few feet above floor level, it's not
    unreasonable to assume the light travels a total distance of about 36',
    give or take a little. (Just how many feet to give or take would depend on
    the precise camera to subject distance.)

    Since there's only a limited need for precision in determining the
    distance the light must travel (because uncertainty in the amount of light
    the ceiling will absorb is a significant limiting factor), I'm inclined to
    let the original estimate of 36' to stand. "Close enough for government
    work," as the saying goes.

    Am I the only one here who sees this thread as just crying out for
    inclusion in a high school trig quiz?
    --
    Michael
    Michael, Aug 3, 2004
    #4
  5. In article <>, Michael
    <> wrote:

    > Am I the only one here who sees this thread as just crying out for
    > inclusion in a high school trig quiz?


    Looks more like a case of clue deficit disorder.
    Randall Ainsworth, Aug 3, 2004
    #5
  6. joe

    vinced Guest

    Randall Ainsworth <> wrote in message news:<020820041913584342%>...
    > In article <>, Michael
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > > Am I the only one here who sees this thread as just crying out for
    > > inclusion in a high school trig quiz?

    >
    > Looks more like a case of clue deficit disorder.


    About 51 feet if the ceiling is flat and the flash is at a 45 degree
    angle. Ok so I was bored. :)

    Vince D
    vinced, Aug 6, 2004
    #6
  7. joe

    John McGraw Guest

    (vinced) wrote in message news:<>...
    > Randall Ainsworth <> wrote in message news:<020820041913584342%>...
    > > In article <>, Michael
    > > <> wrote:
    > >
    > > > Am I the only one here who sees this thread as just crying out for
    > > > inclusion in a high school trig quiz?

    > >
    > > Looks more like a case of clue deficit disorder.

    >
    > About 51 feet if the ceiling is flat and the flash is at a 45 degree
    > angle. Ok so I was bored. :)
    >
    > Vince D


    Hay Joe,
    Definitely don't bounce as the other posters have pointed up :) I
    would suggest U try available light. Perhaps a member of this NG knows
    what is the highest iso U can use w/o getting excessive noise. If this
    causes underexposure, then U will have to use flash. As Jeff pointed
    out the beauty of Digital is that you can see the results,
    immediately. Maybe I'm starting to like this digital stuff.
    For years in the '80s I shot great casuals of people @ social
    gatherings (if I do say so myself), by using an umbrella w/ a Sunpac
    620? (Whichever was their most powerful flash @ that time) mounted to
    an AE 1 w/ motor winder, all connected w/ a Stroboframe w/ the tilt
    option, used w/ Sunpac's hot shoe mounted remote module to control
    exposure. Usually I shot neg. color. but occasionally transparency.
    The exposure was right on. People laughed at my weird looking rig, but
    when they saw the results, their laughs turned to smiles. Wrinkles
    tend to disappear w/o retouching. I'm putting together a similar rig
    only using digital this time, John
    John McGraw, Aug 7, 2004
    #7
  8. > Hay Joe,
    > Definitely don't bounce as the other posters have pointed up :) I
    > would suggest U try available light. Perhaps a member of this NG knows
    > what is the highest iso U can use w/o getting excessive noise. If this
    > causes underexposure, then U will have to use flash. As Jeff pointed
    > out the beauty of Digital is that you can see the results,
    > immediately. Maybe I'm starting to like this digital stuff.
    > For years in the '80s I shot great casuals of people @ social
    > gatherings (if I do say so myself), by using an umbrella w/ a Sunpac
    > 620? (Whichever was their most powerful flash @ that time) mounted to
    > an AE 1 w/ motor winder, all connected w/ a Stroboframe w/ the tilt
    > option, used w/ Sunpac's hot shoe mounted remote module to control
    > exposure. Usually I shot neg. color. but occasionally transparency.
    > The exposure was right on. People laughed at my weird looking rig, but
    > when they saw the results, their laughs turned to smiles. Wrinkles
    > tend to disappear w/o retouching. I'm putting together a similar rig
    > only using digital this time, John


    If I'm understanding the rig correctly, you have a flash with umbrella on the
    Strobo? What size umbrella would you use? I would imagine you need to use a
    fairly small one.

    Another possibility is the larger flash mounted softboxes on the bracket -- I
    have a Morris that is 15x18" that goes on my Pro-RL Stroboframe.
    Unfortunately, the camera fell to the ground (camera is ok), snapping one of
    the supports before I could give it a thorough workout and I haven't rigged a
    suitable replacement yet:

    http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=90032&is=REG

    Photoflex has a similar system that is 12x16":

    http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=WishList.jsp&A=details&Q=&sku=42122&is=REG
    http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=WishList.jsp&A=details&Q=&sku=197439&is=REG

    If you want to get weird looks, you might want to build a flash helmet:

    http://www.juergenspecht.com/truestories/flashhelmet/

    --
    Michael Meissner
    email:
    http://www.the-meissners.org
    Michael Meissner, Aug 7, 2004
    #8
  9. joe

    John McGraw Guest

    Michael Meissner <> wrote in message news:<-meissners.org>...
    > > Hay Joe,
    > > Definitely don't bounce as the other posters have pointed up :) I
    > > would suggest U try available light. Perhaps a member of this NG knows
    > > what is the highest iso U can use w/o getting excessive noise. If this
    > > causes underexposure, then U will have to use flash. As Jeff pointed
    > > out the beauty of Digital is that you can see the results,
    > > immediately. Maybe I'm starting to like this digital stuff.
    > > For years in the '80s I shot great casuals of people @ social
    > > gatherings (if I do say so myself), by using an umbrella w/ a Sunpac
    > > 620? (Whichever was their most powerful flash @ that time) mounted to
    > > an AE 1 w/ motor winder, all connected w/ a Stroboframe w/ the tilt
    > > option, used w/ Sunpac's hot shoe mounted remote module to control
    > > exposure. Usually I shot neg. color. but occasionally transparency.
    > > The exposure was right on. People laughed at my weird looking rig, but
    > > when they saw the results, their laughs turned to smiles. Wrinkles
    > > tend to disappear w/o retouching. I'm putting together a similar rig
    > > only using digital this time, John

    >
    > If I'm understanding the rig correctly, you have a flash with umbrella on the
    > Strobo? What size umbrella would you use? I would imagine you need to use a
    > fairly small one.
    >
    > Another possibility is the larger flash mounted softboxes on the bracket -- I
    > have a Morris that is 15x18" that goes on my Pro-RL Stroboframe.
    > Unfortunately, the camera fell to the ground (camera is ok), snapping one of
    > the supports before I could give it a thorough workout and I haven't rigged a
    > suitable replacement yet:
    >
    > http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=90032&is=REG
    >
    > Photoflex has a similar system that is 12x16":
    >
    > http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=WishList.jsp&A=details&Q=&sku=42122&is=REG
    > http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=WishList.jsp&A=details&Q=&sku=197439&is=REG
    >
    > If you want to get weird looks, you might want to build a flash helmet:
    >
    > http://www.juergenspecht.com/truestories/flashhelmet/


    Hi Michael
    Funny you should ask. After I posted this, I realized I should have
    included the size of the umbrella. (It's a very important part of how
    soft the image will be) IIRC it was ~16". It was fairly large, part of
    the reason it was viewed w/ amusement. Again IIRC, I had to tip it a
    little forward to clear my head. I usually used a 50mm lens & was
    fairly close for headshots. Due to the power & quick recycle of the SF
    620? It was fine up to ~14', group shots, or I could switch to a W.A.
    lens.
    I also put together a cardboard soft box, forget the brand name, but
    was never able to the right effect. When I do it this time, I'll try
    both. All my of that equipment was subsequently stolen. I'm convinced
    that a soft box is a better way to go. It just needs mo refinement.
    I'll be glad to discuss this further, John
    John McGraw, Aug 9, 2004
    #9
  10. (John McGraw) writes:

    > Hi Michael
    > Funny you should ask. After I posted this, I realized I should have
    > included the size of the umbrella. (It's a very important part of how
    > soft the image will be) IIRC it was ~16". It was fairly large, part of
    > the reason it was viewed w/ amusement. Again IIRC, I had to tip it a
    > little forward to clear my head. I usually used a 50mm lens & was
    > fairly close for headshots. Due to the power & quick recycle of the SF
    > 620? It was fine up to ~14', group shots, or I could switch to a W.A.
    > lens.


    I've contemplated using my 30" umbrella on a separate tripod, but my off camera
    cable for the flash isn't that long.

    > I also put together a cardboard soft box, forget the brand name, but
    > was never able to the right effect. When I do it this time, I'll try
    > both. All my of that equipment was subsequently stolen. I'm convinced
    > that a soft box is a better way to go. It just needs mo refinement.
    > I'll be glad to discuss this further, John


    I need to redo the page, but I put together a page exploring all of the
    different flash modifiers I had accumulated over the years (this was before I
    bought the last softbox):

    http://www.the-meissners.org/2004-small-albums/2004-flashmod/index.html

    --
    Michael Meissner
    email:
    http://www.the-meissners.org
    Michael Meissner, Aug 15, 2004
    #10
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. John Russell

    Sky from shot 1 with landscape from shot 2

    John Russell, Aug 4, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    425
    John Russell
    Aug 4, 2003
  2. kodakuser
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    455
    Ron Hunter
    Dec 30, 2003
  3. bk

    Faster SD card cuts shot-to-shot time

    bk, Sep 10, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    693
    MarkH
    Sep 11, 2004
  4. Rayrosher

    Help Nikon 8700 newbie, taking indoor pictures

    Rayrosher, Nov 17, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    22
    Views:
    1,615
    Harvey
    Feb 7, 2005
  5. Tass

    Shot to shot speed

    Tass, Feb 13, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    457
    timeOday
    Feb 13, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page