The advantage of bounce flash

We all hear about the advantages of using a bounce flash instead of the ones that are built into our P&S and DSLR cameras.
Well, Max got a new haircut for Valentine's Day and he agreed to pose for a photo session for his "daddy". (The last three pictures are from this "session".)
Camera was the Olympus E510, FL50 Flash (with an Omni Bounce flash deflector), the older version of the 40-150 (just because it focuses a little faster). Pictures were taken in our living room which has a huge set of glass doors so we get a nice mixture of natural light. The first shot is with the flash turned off completely. The other two use the flash also - even though the EXIF data says the flash did not fire. But in both cases not only was the Omni Bounce on the flash head but the flash was not pointed at Max. Additionally, the shutter speed for both of the flash pictures was reduced from a normal sync speed of around 1/160 to 1/30 to allow the light in the room to have a greater effect on the overall exposure. (Speaking of shutter speeds, the speed for the non-flash picture was 1/8 second. Thank G-d for the Image Stabilization built into the E510!)
Enjoy the shots,
Steve

http://www.pbase.com/swandy/max&page=3

Hi Steve

My son and me has been through most of them, Omni Bounch, no direct, diffuser, direct and more. Personally I think using a flash takes practice, technique plus lots of creativity or creative thinking.

For example I like the way you combined the available light with using the flash and by adapting the shutter speed according. Not really things one can read in a book

My son is currently using his flash 80% plus when he is doing day light shoots. Its amazing the results he gets.

On the other hand and like most things, putting the 220EX on the G7 and using auto combined with face recognition and the results can be awesome

Just felt like chatting.....hope Max gets a SMS next week

Siegfried

Hi Siegfried,
It's always great "chatting" with you also.
My son-in-law shoots professionally for the New York Post and his fill-light shots are great. Especially the ones where you take pictures at night and attempt to get the background city lights to show also. Flash photography is truly an art to get it right.
Steve
(BTW - in case you did not read my post in the "general" forum, you should be VERY PROUD of your son's work. He has an incredible eye!!! Has he taken any formal training in photography or is he basically self-taught?)

Thanks Steve

He is self taught on CS3 and its amazing to see what is possible when somebody with art and the "eye" you refer to start working. Its then when things like dynamic range, pixels, banding, noise and so much more just dissapear. They all become part of the picture and the final presentation. I am very lucky to see somebody using all the specs of a camera to produce art....

Best

Siegfried

Bounce flash can definitely give excellent results.

Some years ago I bought myself a proper-fitting attachment for my tilt and swivel gun, but it turned out to be outrageously expensive for what it was - a thin piece of molded white plastic that probably cost a matter of pence to manufacture. More fool me, but never again.

Other capable solutions could be that thin white stuff they wrap TVs in these days, or simply a piece of white paper if you're stuck for better options. I also used a trimmed down lunchbox lid as a catch-light attachment held in place with an elastic band, and it worked really well for putting an attractive sparkle in the subject's eyes. I've seen press photographers using bits of card!

One thing to watch out for with bounce flash in more confined spaces is the surrounding decor . It doesn't take much to create a faint colour cast - maybe caused by curtains, painted walls and ceilings, bright furniture, electric lights, etc. This may be even more obvious if the flashgun's output is reduced. Try shooting RAW for extra insurance.

Sam

Hi Sam,
Very good point about watching what you are bouncing the light off of with regards to color. I made that mistake very frequently in my old film (remember film) days and could not understand why. At least now adays it is easier to correct a bad color cast.
Steve

Sam Canvas wrote:Bounce flash can definitely give excellent results.

Some years ago I bought myself a proper-fitting attachment for my tilt and swivel gun, but it turned out to be outrageously expensive for what it was - a thin piece of molded white plastic that probably cost a matter of pence to manufacture. More fool me, but never again.

Other capable solutions could be that thin white stuff they wrap TVs in these days, or simply a piece of white paper if you're stuck for better options. I also used a trimmed down lunchbox lid as a catch-light attachment held in place with an elastic band, and it worked really well for putting an attractive sparkle in the subject's eyes. I've seen press photographers using bits of card!

One thing to watch out for with bounce flash in more confined spaces is the surrounding decor . It doesn't take much to create a faint colour cast - maybe caused by curtains, painted walls and ceilings, bright furniture, electric lights, etc. This may be even more obvious if the flashgun's output is reduced. Try shooting RAW for extra insurance.

Sam

I have noticed the same problem but I suspect there may be a way around it:
If we set WB to 'Auto' in stead of 'Flash' is the camera then not going to adjust automatically? I am not sure, but I certainly am going to experiment to find out.

Regards Hans

You might be right, Hans. I remember this being a problem back in the "film" days.
Definitely something to check out. Since the E510 does not have a "Flash" white balance settings, I guess we should try either a daylight setting or 5500 (which I believe is supposed to be for daylight) since the flash is supposed to be the same temperature of daylight?
Steve

Hello all,

I apologize if I have gone too far off topic with this request.

I need/want to buy an external flash for my E-330. I know there are three units--the FL-50/36/40--and have read a little about their respective characteristics, but that's about all I know about them.

I'm interested in the 40 (used), but wonder if that would be a good choice. I don't mind being a bit less than cutting edge on equipment.

Thanks for your patience with all my amateur questions.

Phil Vaughn
(P-J)

Hi PJ,
I never had the FL40. I had the FL50 and still have the FL20. Just sold the FL50 to get the FL36R which on the E3/420/520 you can use in the wireless remote control mode which is absolutely great.
I know that the FL40 was discontinued a few years back - and people were annoyed that now there choices were the FL50 (larger, heavier, more expensive) and the FL20 (much smaller, lighter, not as powerful, slower, cheaper). The only reason I got the FL20 was that the original E1 did not have a pop-up flash and I did not like carrying around the large FL50 all the time.
I believe the FL40 was similar to the FL36 in size/weight and where you could rotate the flash both vertically and horizontally. I would assume that it is slightly more powerful than the FL36 (guide number of 40 compared to 36). I do know that the FL50/50R recycles significantly faster than the FL40 and FL36, but unless you are shooting weddings that should not be a major concern.
Hope this helped,
Steve

Steve,

That is precisely the input I was hoping for. I was wondering about the comparable guide numbers on the 36 and 40 and, although I could find some incomplete information, assumed that the 40 would be a bit more powerful. At this juncture, I will likely buy the 36R and doubt that the slower recycle rate will be too much of a problem.

At this purchasing rate, I might have to give photography up for something cheaper...like powerboating!

Thank you so much for your thoughts.

Have a great weekend.

Phil Vaughn
(P-J)