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

[mweintraub]

Here is the example as mentioned above.

Top one is 1/500s
Sec one is 1/60s
Third one is 1/60s (cut off)

Digital capture of film on light table. I set the white and black points on the 2nd image.

 

[markbarendt]

Here is the example as mentioned above.

Top one is 1/500s
Sec one is 1/60s
Third one is 1/60s (cut off)

Digital capture of film on light table. I set the white and black points on the 2nd image.

Nice dog.

Soft box high and camera right?

So first look at the shadow between the dog and the corner, that would be a very tough spot for the flash to fill given your setup (running the soft box horizontal instead of vertical would fill that spot better and allow the light to go up closer to the ceiling). Second look at how the soft box reflection on the door remains constant relative to the rest of the door. Both get (roughly) equally brighter.

These types of indicators are normal for fill flash because you aren't relying on the flash as the main light, ambient has to help get the whole exposure up to normal.

That isn't a flaw, that's the point of fill flash. Allowing ambient light to carry a good share of the load can make for a more natural looking shot. The fill is just there to help.

 

[omaha]

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

This is where I suspect you are mistaken.

The scans you posted are exactly what I would expect based on your description of the lighting and the respective shutter speeds.

 

[mweintraub]

When it comes around the same time of day when I took that shot, I'll meter the scene again without the flash. But until then, here is a setup shot I took with the digital while firing the flash at the exact same flash power.

D700
50mm 1.8G
ISO 200
1/60s f/6.3 (what the light meter read)

As you can the softbox has a lot of spill, so the entire corner is lit. The camera and tripod are in the dark. The camera and tripod are actually closer to the ambient light than the door, so you can see there is no ambient light that made it's way into the shot.

I've attached a 2nd photo that's 100% ambient.
ISO 3200
1/60s F/1.8
It's pretty dark in here (as far as photography is concerned).

 

[John Koehrer]

This is where I suspect you are mistaken.

The scans you posted are exactly what I would expect based on your description of the lighting and the respective shutter speeds.

Me too.
The ambient light is what is affecting the background. Shorter exposure=darker background, longer=brighter. You're not using
fill in these examples for the primary subject. If you want to fill the corners, your light has to be repositioned.

In sunlight you would need fill to lighten or minimize shadows. Assume a back/sidelit subject and the fill goes on the shadowed side.

 

[mweintraub]

I disagree. But of course I can be wrong.

So, at 7pm, I turned on the light like it was on that night and took a meter reading. @ 1/60s, I got "E.u" (see attached photo)

It would require a 6s shutter @ f/6.3 to get proper exposure with this ambient light.

 

[omaha]

Shoot a series of frames in that light (same f/stop as before, varying the shutter) with the RZ and see what you get.

For a proper experiment, start with a perfectly (or as nearly so as is practical...a bedroom with the door closed and the lights off in the hall and the curtains drawn at night will do) dark room.

Set up something for a subject, set up your strobe and set it so it meters f/8 at the subject. Set your RZ to f/8.

Take a series of five shots, varying the shutter from 1/4 through 1/250.

Now, add a bright table lamp to the room. Don't change anything else, and repeat the same five shots.

Unless something is gitchy about your strobe (ie, inconsistent power output), the first five should be identical, and the second five should be progressively less exposed.

 

[mweintraub]

Any problems with shooting this digitally? D700's 1/250s or D70's 1/500s should work. I have a long sync cable to test this too. Will also try with a speed light in the same soft box.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[omaha]

That will work. Just make sure you are in manual mode and keep the shutter speed under 1/200.

 

[mweintraub]

Testing done. Looks like the Fotodiox strobes don't like it when the shutter is too high. Well, you know what I mean. When I replaced it with an SB-600, I could sync higher.

I'll post samples later that I took with the room lights on and off.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[omaha]

Its not the strobes, its the focal plane shutter on your Nikons.

I don't remember the max shutter speed on those (used to shoot a D70 myself), but its not going to be much above 1/200s, 1/300s tops. Nikon has some fancy stuff they do with their TTL flash system (essentially, they lower flash power and extend its duration) that allows for faster max sync speed (I think it goes up to about 1/320s max) when using Nikon brand flashes, but that doesn't apply to using studio strobes.

With a focal plane shutter found in an SLR camera, there are two curtains. The first one opens, exposing the film/sensor, then the second one closes to end the exposure. The definition of maximum flash sync speed is the highest shutter speed where the second curtain doesn't start to close until the first curtain is fully open. That is the highest speed at which the entire surface of the film/sensor is exposed at the same time. If the flash fires during that instant, you will expose the full surface of the film/sensor. At faster shutter speeds, what you end up with is a small slit (the gap between the opening and closing curtains) passing over the film/sensor. In that way, an amount of light equal to the desired exposure duration is allowed to pass, but the total surface of the film is never exposed to light at the same time. Since the flash can be (for all practical purposes here) thought of as taking place over an instantaneously short period of time, all that gets exposed is whatever portion of the film/sensor that happened to be open to light at the moment it is fired.

That is what is meant when people talk about leaf shutters (such as what you have with the RZ) "synchronizing at any speed". With a leaf shutter, no matter the shutter speed, there is still an instant where the entire shutter is fully open.

 

[omaha]

Oops...that should read "max shutter SYNC speed"

 

[mweintraub]

The D700's max sync is 1/250s. Isn't the affect of hitting or exceeding it black bars?

I did not use any TTL system connection. I used the same CTR-301p trigger for both flashes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[markbarendt]

Isn't the affect of hitting or exceeding it black bars?

At least a dark bar, say the top third of the photo. Ambient light still affects that area.

 

[mweintraub]

I'm well familiar with sync speeds and why there are maxes and the effects of hitting and exceeding them.

So, I've renamed all the photo's filenames to correspond to the test and shutter speed. Here is the test environment.

I tried to replicate the photo I took before. Placed the strobe/flash and camera at the same place based on the setup photo previously shown. Used a normal lens just like I did on the RZ.

Tests were as follows:

Fotodiox metered at ISO 200, F/7.1, 1/60s (100% flash - 0% ambient)
SB-600 metered at ISO 200, F/6.3, 1/60s (100% flash - 0% ambient)
Shutter speeds tested in this order of shooting:
1/60
1/200
1/4
1/15
1/30
1/125
1/250

Lights On - CTR-301p wireless trigger - Fotodiox L-600 @ 1/32 power - f/7.1
Lights Off - CTR-301p wireless trigger - Fotodiox L-600 @ 1/32 power - f/7.1
Lights On - PC to 1/4" sync cable - Fotodiox L-600 @ 1/32 power - f/7.1
Lights Off - PC to 1/4" sync cable - Fotodiox L-600 @ 1/32 power - f/7.1
Lights On - CTR-301p wireless trigger - Nikon SB-600 @ 1/2 power - f/6.3
Lights Off - CTR-301p wireless trigger - Nikon SB-600 @ 1/2 power - f/6.3

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/q8sps2vqkax65sz/la7qjoBfZZ


One thing I didn't test is without flash. But if there was enough ambient light to show, wouldn't 1/4s be over exposed?
I should have also exceeded the sync speed to show that there is no ambient at that bar.

 

[markbarendt]

Well, you are definitely having sync speed issues at 250. That's not a surprise to me with off camera flash.

I think part of what is keeping you from seeing the effect of ambient here is the relatively small aperture 6.3-7.1 in this test compared to the f2.8 you were using in post 49, that's roughly 2.5 stops you've knocked off the ambient.

 

[omaha]

I'm struggling to understand what you are doing here. There are so many variables in your tests, you're really not isolating any one thing.

It appears that your hypothesis is that shutter duration effects exposure under isolated flash lighting. It also appears to me that you are under the impression that your testing environment has such low ambient light that it can be ignored.

One thing I didn't test is without flash.

The test without the flash is the most important part.

But if there was enough ambient light to show, wouldn't 1/4s be over exposed?

The shots at 1/4s are visibly brighter. How do you interpret that?

I should have also exceeded the sync speed to show that there is no ambient at that bar.

There are six stops of difference between 1/4s and 1/250s. Even if the black bars show full shadow at 1/250s (which I doubt. I bet if you pulled the RAW file into Photoshop and cranked the exposure, you would find that there is a hint of detail there), that doesn't mean there is not enough ambient light to create meaningful exposure at 1/4s.

 

[mweintraub]

Well, you are definitely having sync speed issues at 250. That's not a surprise to me with off camera flash.

I think part of what is keeping you from seeing the effect of ambient here is the relatively small aperture 6.3-7.1 in this test compared to the f2.8 you were using in post 49, that's roughly 2.5 stops you've knocked off the ambient.

Where did I use f/2.8? The only time I used anything other than 6.3/7.1 is to show how low the ambient

I'm struggling to understand what you are doing here. There are so many variables in your tests, you're really not isolating any one thing.

There is only variable with each test type is the shutter speed. I shouldn't have put ALL the photos in one folder, sorry.

It appears that your hypothesis is that shutter duration effects exposure under isolated flash lighting. It also appears to me that you are under the impression that your testing environment has such low ambient light that it can be ignored.

Yes. I would think that if in order to get a proper exposure is to go up to ISO 3200 and drop the aperture a few stops then ambient is very low.

The test without the flash is the most important part.

I'll try that again tonight (with adjustment for DST).

The shots at 1/4s are visibly brighter. How do you interpret that?

Visibly brighter, yes, but only slightly! 1/4s is four stops slower than 1/60 and only a minor difference to my eyes. 1/200s is two stops faster than 1/60s and makes a huge difference.

There are six stops of difference between 1/4s and 1/250s. Even if the black bars show full shadow at 1/250s (which I doubt. I bet if you pulled the RAW file into Photoshop and cranked the exposure, you would find that there is a hint of detail there), that doesn't mean there is not enough ambient light to create meaningful exposure at 1/4s.

So I've moved the photos into folders for their respective tests. This isolates the shutterspeed as the only variable.

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/q8sps2vqkax65sz/la7qjoBfZZ

If you look at the the folder called "Lights Off, CTR-301P, Fotodiox" and "Lights Off, CTR-301P, SB600" then compare the 1/60s and 1/200s shots, you'll notice the underexposed photo from the Fotodiox. With the lights off (and having to use my phone to see anything in the room), there should be 100% no ambient light.

OK, so what do you want me to test? What am I missing? Why is the SB-600 photos at 1/200 not as dark as the Fotodiox? I'm not sure what else I can do. Maybe I need to stop trying to convince you guys. =/

 

[omaha]

What is it you are trying to compare? The flash power of the SB-600 vs the Fotodiox, or the effect of shutter duration on strobe lighting?

I go back to the test I proposed in post #57:

Shoot a series of frames in that light (same f/stop as before, varying the shutter) with the RZ and see what you get.

For a proper experiment, start with a perfectly (or as nearly so as is practical...a bedroom with the door closed and the lights off in the hall and the curtains drawn at night will do) dark room.

Set up something for a subject, set up your strobe and set it so it meters f/8 at the subject. Set your RZ to f/8.

Take a series of five shots, varying the shutter from 1/4 through 1/250.

Now, add a bright table lamp to the room. Don't change anything else, and repeat the same five shots.

Unless something is gitchy about your strobe (ie, inconsistent power output), the first five should be identical, and the second five should be progressively less exposed.

In truth, you can simplify that further. Instead of a series of five shots at different shutter speeds, just shoot one shot at 1/2s and one shot at 1/200s.

You will end up with a set of four shots: Two with strobe only (assuming you find a room that is truly dark), and two with strobe + ambient.

Its not important which strobe or which triggering method you use. Just pick one of each and stick with it. Run the test, then post the four photos. Actually, I take that back. Use the Fotodiox. Nikon stuff is so "smart" there is always the risk of forgetting to turn off some automatic adjustment feature, spoiling the test.

As an aside, in any sort of indoor/studio situation where I have the time to carefully light a shot, I vastly prefer studio lights to speedlights. I only use speedlights when I am either taking a bunch of candid shots indoors (such as shooting a party, where I'll set a couple of speedlights in strategic locations in the room, bounce the light off the ceiling, and slave them wirelessly to the camera using Nikon's uber-smart TTL metering) or need fill flash outdoors in a spot where power is not readily available.

 

[mweintraub]

I'm not sure what I did differently with your proposed in post #57 except for using digital and a chandelier like I did in that film shot.

I can simplify my tests from yesterday by deleting everything but the 1/4s and 1/200s shots, right? Sounds the same.
Here are the four photos:

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ph2wuwij6yf1dmp/kVHjN9zDd7?lst
[make sure you look at the list view to see the filenames.]
File name format:
On/Off => Chandelier state
CTR/Cbl => dumb CTR-301P wireless trigger / sync cable
L-600/SB-600 => Fotodiox L-600 strobe @ 1/32 power / Nikon SB-600 @ 1/2 power
4 / 200 => 1/4s and 1/200s


I'm not sure how smart the Nikon SB-600 will be on manual mode and triggered by a dumb wireless trigger.

 

[jon koss]

Getting back to the original topic (with apologies to all of course), part of the answer depends on what you mean by minimal depth of field. Is the DOF in the attached images minimal enough? If so, then David Allen is right on the money. You won't need anything but your camera, your flash and brilliant artistic instinct. If you are shooting close with mediumish format then you will not have much DOF even at modest apertures. Well done fill flash never fails to thrill so best of luck!

J

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

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

 

[omaha]

You need some shots with no strobe.

In my test, I assume a truly dark room. I don't think yours is.

 

[markbarendt]

Where did I use f/2.8? The only time I used anything other than 6.3/7.1 is to show how low the ambient

My apologies I misread post 49 and maybe your intent in your posts and tests here.

My thought stands within the context of the thread. Minimum DOF (large aperture), sunny day, and using fill flash.

If we are trying to see how fill flash works we need to give the ambient light a fighting chance.

Maybe we need a different thread to address your question.

 

[mweintraub]

Yea, sorry for hijacking this thread. Actually I didn't have a question, I was stating my findings


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[markbarendt]

Yea, sorry for hijacking this thread. Actually I didn't have a question, I was stating my findings


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's cool, flash is fun and I'm no longer confused.