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

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Very true

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

As long as the shutter duration is longer than the duration of the flash, it shouldn't be a problem. Some flash or strobe units have shorter durations at lower power so it might be advantageous to use a lower power setting. As for reducing DOF, using a long lens with a wide aperture will help.

 

[mweintraub]

As long as the shutter duration is longer than the duration of the flash, it shouldn't be a problem. Some flash or strobe units have shorter durations at lower power so it might be advantageous to use a lower power setting. As for reducing DOF, using a long lens with a wide aperture will help.

I thought the shorter duration were at higher powers.

added: I've experienced issues where my strobes were not illuminating the frame when I shot above 1/200 and no, it's not my camera's sync speed because I used it below the 1/250s on the digital and the 1/400 of the RZ67

 

[ToddB]

I'm doing a Strobist kit.. I'll be bringing out of retirement a Sunpak 544 on a monopod with Cybersync trigger/reciever and shoot through umbrella and Rollei T and 3.5F. So it look like I need to look for a ND6 or 8 for bright days.

Todd

 

[BradS]

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.

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.

ah...yes. Now I understand. Thanks guys.

 

[omaha]

Ditto on the filters.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Possibly...

I thought the shorter duration were at higher powers.

I know with my Broncolor Impacts, they had a shorter duration at lower power. But take a look what I found.

http://www.scantips.com/lights/flashbasics2.html

 

[rjbuzzclick]

added: I've experienced issues where my strobes were not illuminating the frame when I shot above 1/200 and no, it's not my camera's sync speed because I used it below the 1/250s on the digital and the 1/400 of the RZ67

Were you using optical triggers for your remote strobes? In my experience, optical triggers (at least the peanut slaves I was using) have quite a bit of delay on them. I was doing a shoot with a digital camera a while back with a sync speed of 1/180, but at that speed I was only getting the strobe that was directly cabled to the camera. The optically triggered strobes fired, but after the shutter had closed. Slowing down the shutter speed to 1/125 solved the problem for me.

 

[mweintraub]

I know with my Broncolor Impacts, they had a shorter duration at lower power. But take a look what I found.

http://www.scantips.com/lights/flashbasics2.html

Yeah, I'm probably wrong. I'll do some tests myself to get my head around it.

Were you using optical triggers for your remote strobes? In my experience, optical triggers (at least the peanut slaves I was using) have quite a bit of delay on them. I was doing a shoot with a digital camera a while back with a sync speed of 1/180, but at that speed I was only getting the strobe that was directly cabled to the camera. The optically triggered strobes fired, but after the shutter had closed. Slowing down the shutter speed to 1/125 solved the problem for me.

It was either wired or RF wireless. Unless the receiver cable didn't make contact correctly, it shouldn't have been optical. More testing will be done as I do want to shot at higher speeds with the leaf lenses.

 

[David Allen]

Quite simply, if you use a camera with in the lens shutter you can do what you want, also with any camera that allows sync speeds that you can choose. Put simply, set your camera to 1/500 at f16 and use a flash that will illuminate the scene with sufficient light at f16. Now you control the lighting of every scene.

Best,

David.
wwwdsallen.de

 

[markbarendt]

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

Sure.

Shutter sync time is the big issue.

FP High-Speed sync with late model Nikon cameras matched with the right speed lights are made for this, though it's not automatic.

As slow a film as you can get will help too. With color negs that may be 160, B&W maybe 125, 100, or 50.

The other thing that can help a bunch is to choose a longer lens.

 

[Jaf-Photo]

There's a lot of talk about flash here.

But why not use a reflector instead, as I suggested?

It's easy to set up and easy to tune your exposure with (just normal metering and exposure adjustment).

And the light looks more natural on the subject too (because it is).

 

[markbarendt]

There's a lot of talk about flash here.

But why not use a reflector instead, as I suggested?

It's easy to set up and easy to tune your exposure with (just normal metering and exposure adjustment).

And the light looks more natural on the subject too (because it is).

Because it takes a stand or second person to do well.

It does work well though if you have the support.

 

[cliveh]

If you want minimal depth of field, use a telephoto lens.

 

[mopar_guy]

At ISO 32 in bright sunlight, the sunny f16 rule tells us that f 2.8 needs a 1/1000 second exposure. An ISO 125 film and a two stop ND filter at f 2.8 is still 1/1000 second.

A Nikon F5 and a SB-26 will do this in FP mode.
An Olympus OM-4T or OM-3Ti with an F-280 flash will do this.
Nikorrmat will do this with FP flash bulbs.
An Olympus OM-1 will do this with FP flash bulbs.

 

[Jaf-Photo]

Because it takes a stand or second person to do well.

It does work well though if you have the support.

The OP suggested that he was shooting portraits, so there should be people around to hold the reflector. If not, stands are cheap.

One more benefefit of the reflector is that it sculpts rather than flattens like a flash does - and you can see the lightingin the viewfinder, rather than wait until the film is developed.

 

[markbarendt]

The OP suggested that he was shooting portraits, so there should be people around to hold the reflector. If not, stands are cheap.

One more benefefit of the reflector is that it sculpts rather than flattens like a flash does - and you can see the lightingin the viewfinder, rather than wait until the film is developed.

Flash can do a good job of sculpting the light too, just add a cord from hot shoe to flash or bounce the light. Flash is very flexible once learned.

 

[Jaf-Photo]

Flash can do a good job of sculpting the light too, just add a cord from hot shoe to flash or bounce the light. Flash is very flexible once learned.

Sure, but when you shoot portraits of clients with film you won't know until after the shoot if you flattened their faces or gave them big noses (unless you use a polaroid back).

Considering that and the syncing difficulties described above, I feel that a reflector would be superior for the OP's purposes.

Which is why you see them a lot on pro shoots, I guess.

 

[markbarendt]

Sure, but when you shoot portraits with film you won't know until after the shoot if you flattened their faces or gave them big noses (unless you use a polaroid back). considering that and the syncing difficulties described above, I feel that a reflector would be superior.

Which is why you see them a lot on pro shoots, I guess.

Reflectors are a good choice, no question there.

Your choice to use them instead of flash is fine too, not asking you to do different.

But:

The syncing difficulties are very manageable and with a bit of practice a wonderful use for fill flash that can be done without assistance and in any direction. If you are working with a bright front lit background and a shaded subject reflectors become a real challenge because the sun is behind you and hidden from direct view.

And:

The flattening/big nose argument is silly unless one is truly new to portraits or simply not paying attention: it isn't an issue related to flash or reflector use.

 

[Jaf-Photo]

Sure, there's no need to run this discussion much further.

I just find that really accomplished use of flash is less widespread today than before.

Probably because most shooters today are digital and can get away with not using flash in situations where in the old film days it was essential (now we have noiseless high iso and light sculpting in Lightroom etc).

Based on the OP's questions, I assumed that my comments could be relevant.

 

[mweintraub]

Because it takes a stand or second person to do well.

It does work well though if you have the support.

You can do it!

/support

 

[markbarendt]

You can do it!

/support

Big help!

 

[mweintraub]

I thought the shorter duration were at higher powers.

added: I've experienced issues where my strobes were not illuminating the frame when I shot above 1/200 and no, it's not my camera's sync speed because I used it below the 1/250s on the digital and the 1/400 of the RZ67

OK, so last night I set up some gear to finish off a roll I had in the RZ67. Focusing on the aperture, focus, and keeping the dog still, I unintentionally ignored what shutter speed I had the camera set on for the first shot. It was set at 1/400s. After that, I changed it to 1/60s. After processing the film I noticed that the frame shot at 1/500s is underexposed. I'll scan the film as examples.

 

[markbarendt]

OK, so last night I set up some gear to finish off a roll I had in the RZ67. Focusing on the aperture, focus, and keeping the dog still, I unintentionally ignored what shutter speed I had the camera set on for the first shot. It was set at 1/400s. After that, I changed it to 1/60s. After processing the film I noticed that the frame shot at 1/500s is underexposed. I'll scan the film as examples.

Was flash involved?

Direct or bounce?

Were there other light sources?

What I'm getting at here is that the flash typically has it's greatest effect on the main subject and given that the flash is faster than the shutter, typically 1/1,000th or even much shorter than that, the shutter has no effect on that part of the light. Flash output is typically controlled by duration, 1/1,000th is typical of a full power pop, 1/4 power pop might be 1/8,000th, you get where this is going I'm sure. Full power pops are not normal with fill flash unless the distance is large.

The shutter time does have a very big effect on the ambient light.

 

[mweintraub]

Sorry, I was going to give the full details when I got the film scanned, but here it is.

RZ67 on tripod with 110mm 2.8 on Kodak TMAX 100 (2010 expired, fridge stored)
One Fotodiox L-600 strobe on min power (1/64?) with 24x36"(?) softbox about 3-5' from subject (I'm bad at gauging distances)
Metered with L-358, ISO 100, 1/60s -> f/6.3
Lens aperture set to f/5.6 (non W lens)

edit to add: It was kinda dark in the room so I'm guessing ambient had no affect.

 

[MattKing]

The flash might have been of a duration that is too short - you may have experienced the "short duration" type of reciprocity failure.