Minimal depth of field on sunny day using fill flash with film camera?

[ToddB]

OK guys..

I was wondering if it's possible to shoot a picture using film camera on bright sunny day and be able to have a minmal depth of field and use a fill flash? Say F2.8.. Would you need high ISO or low ISO film? I drew a blank on this.

Todd

 

[BradS]

a slow film would be necessary (low ISO). If it is very bright, you might also need a ND filter or polarizer (which can act like an ND filter).

 

[PanTomasz]

Id use low low iso, camera with short flash synchro time (1/250), adding dense filter may help as well. replace flash with some other filling constant light so You can short Exposure time to whatever needed and keep 2.8 on Your lens

 

[Alex Muir]

I would think a slower speed film would be best, but you need a high enough shutter speed to avoid camera shake. If you can go out in similar light as a practice run, you could adjust your camera settings to see if you can get a usable shutter speed at f2.8 with an available film speed. Then all you need to do is load the chosen film and set the flash to give the right amount of fill. The shutter speed would need to be one that would sync with flash. Some Nikon models have high speed flash sync which might be useful. My F100 does, as does the F5, but you need a compatible flash.
Alex

 

[BradS]

If you could use a reflector instead of electronic flash, then you could get away with ISO 100 film. Let's say your meter reading is f/11 @ 1/125 second with ISO 100 film. Then, you could use f/2.8 @1/2000.

 

[ToddB]

I usually run with 100 ISO BW film.. think that low enough to get it?

Todd

 

[Jaf-Photo]

Probably a slow film, ND filter and reflector instead of flash would be the best way to do it.

 

[ToddB]

I should mention too that I would like to use FE which has a max speed of 100 or my Rollei which has max sp of 500. don't know if that is possible.

Todd

 

[ckagy]

If you use a camera with a leaf shutter, you should be able to sync at a high speed, thereby killing the ambient, and getting more bang for your buck with the flash.

 

[jcc]

Probably need to resort to using filters. 1/500s is just too slow for a bright sunny day, when shooting at f/2.8 with ISO 100.

 

[jcc]

Or maybe a slower film, like ISO 25, if you want to avoid filters.

 

[ToddB]

These ND filter have my interest.. I have a polarizing filter, but the ND filters graded? if so.. How do you know where to stop it down at? Are there filter that have - 1 or 2 stop to get min depth of field? Using light meter with this too.


Todd

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

High shutter speed flash syncing cameras is also another strategy. You can also move the flash closer also. But this will reduce the specularity of the light which you may or may not want.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

These ND filter have my interest.. I have a polarizing filter, but the ND filters graded? if so.. How do you know where to stop it down at? Are there filter that have - 1 or 2 stop to get min depth of field? Using light meter with this too.


Todd

Graduated filters are only if you want a portion of your scene to gradually get darker the closer to the edge of the frame you get. Forget that.
Use standard neutral density filters. They leave everything in the picture intact, and just make it darker. They exist in a range from two stop down to the 'big stopper' which I think is 10 stops. I normally use a 3 stop, which is useful on very bright days. I normally shoot 400 speed film, and if I want larger apertures, it's JUST right. I also use a 9 stop filter, which is great for making long exposures during the day.
A polarizer affects the look of a scene by removing many of the reflections of shiny surfaces, so using it as an ND filter is a compromise if you don't want that effect.

Other than that I don't know much about flash photography.

Good luck!

 

[Chris G]

The problem with using a neutral density filter is that it will reduce the flash output as well. If you knock the ambient light down 2 stops with a ND, you will need to increase your flash output by two stops to achieve the same exposure.

This might work while doing flash as fill (Flash is 1-2 stops below the ambient) but will be difficult to do if the flash is your key (Ambient is 1-2 stops below the flash) and will require a big Flash, like a studio flash.

The best way to go is higher sync speed, the FE is 1/125 which is not really high enough. Newer bodies are 1/250 and leaf shutter cameras sync at all speeds, well up to 1/500 at least on mine.

Another option is high speed sync which is available on the newer Nikon flashes and bodies, but again flash output diminishes as you go for higher sync speeds.

 

[NedL]

... But this will reduce the specularity of the light which you may or may not want.

I'm not OP but can you explain this in a sentence or two? Pretend that I'm 5 years old...

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Specular light

I'm not OP but can you explain this in a sentence or two? Pretend that I'm 5 years old...

Please correct me if I'm wrong here. But the further away the light source such as the sun, the more specular, it is. The closer, the less specular. As mentioned earlier, the sun is very specular (harsh) because it's so far away. On the other hand, if a light source is closer, it will look softer, less specular.

Maybe another APUGer can explain better than I can.

 

[BradS]

The problem with using a neutral density filter is that it will reduce the flash output as well.

I maybe daft but, this make no sense to me at all. How does putting an ND filter on the lens have any effect at all on the flash output? Are you assuming that the flash is getting exposure info from the camera's TTL metering system?

 

[fretlessdavis]

I maybe daft but, this make no sense to me at all. How does putting an ND filter on the lens have any effect at all on the flash output? Are you assuming that the flash is getting exposure info from the camera's TTL metering system?

Relative flash output is I think what he was getting after. With 400 speed film, your flash's GN is 4x that vs. 100 speed film.

Neutral Density filters or slower film, either will do. If you get the balance between flash and ambient correct at, say, f/8, a 3 stop ND filter will give you the same balance at f/2.8 without adjusting the shutter speed or flash power.

 

[Chris G]

Relative flash output is I think what he was getting after. With 400 speed film, your flash's GN is 4x that vs. 100 speed film.

Yes, thank you... the actual output of the flash doesn't change

 

[BradS]

Yes, I understand the relation between film speed and GN but does a ND filter imply a guide number change when the flash is used for fill? I would not expect it to. The ND filter is not covering the flash....and the flash doesn't know anything about the ND filter....

Assuming a given camera to subject distance, the flash output needed for fill is the same regardless of the presence or absence of the ND filter - No?

 

[fretlessdavis]

Yes, I understand the relation between film speed and GN but does a ND filter imply a guide number change when the flash is used for fill? I would not expect it to. The ND filter is not covering the flash....and the flash doesn't know anything about the ND filter....

Assuming a given camera to subject distance, the flash output needed for fill is the same regardless of the presence or absence of the ND filter - No?

Yes, it does give a guide number change. Using a 3 stop ND filter will quarter your GN. It cuts both ambient light AND flash light going into the lens. It affects both in the same manner, so you can slap a 3 stop filter on and open your lens up 3 stops, in the real world. If you needed a 1/1000 speed to get your ambient balance correct at your chosen aperture, you could put a 3 stop ND filter on and get the same balance at 1/125.

If you're running around doing fill flash with 3 stop ND on and 400 speed film, you'd have to calculate flash exposure, as well as ambient exposure, like you were shooting 100 speed film. So, yes, it does effect flash GN.

 

[MattKing]

Yes, I understand the relation between film speed and GN but does a ND filter imply a guide number change when the flash is used for fill? I would not expect it to. The ND filter is not covering the flash....and the flash doesn't know anything about the ND filter....

Assuming a given camera to subject distance, the flash output needed for fill is the same regardless of the presence or absence of the ND filter - No?

If the ND filter is on the lens, it will decrease the brightness of both the sunlight and the flash equally - at the film plane.

But if you have enough flash power to, for example, achieve appropriate fill at 1/500 at f/8 (assuming EI of 125 and a leaf shutter) then a 3 stop ND filter will allow for the same result from 1/500 at f/2.8.

 

[mweintraub]

Depending on the flash duration, you might run into issues with fast shutter speeds with very fast flashes.

 

[ToddB]

Hey guys.. thanks for insight on this. I don't have a whole lot experiance using these filter. I live in New Mexico , and boy does the sun shine here a lot of days in the year. It's nice to know that I can have something in my bag to have a fighting chance on getting a good looking photo depite trying to pitch the optomal time of the day to customers (which they never listen too.) I'm wanting to get a 39mm ND6 or 8 for my Rollei.

Todd