On/off camera flash advice

I've got a Canon 300D and want to add a flash to my kit. I'm
iinterested in two different applcations and one flash may not do
everything. I've tried fo figure out the Canon, Metz, Vivatar and
Sigma catalogs on the Internet and find I can't narrow down my
choices.

First, I'd like a flash that improves shots like this;

http://www.panix.com/~adykes/CRW_9508.jpg

This was shot at with the 28-135 zoom at near-max zoom with the
on-camera flash from about 25 ft.

I assume the smallest add-on on-camera flash would make a big
improvement in the shot by allowing me to use a lower ISO and by
putting some light on the faces. (the house lighting was worst-case,
with just a single stage light.)

Second, I'd like something I could use off-camera in sync with the
on-camera flash. I found this flash that looks like what I want but it
seems to be specific to Canon P&S cameras. I'd like to use it for side
lighting for headshots, for example.

http://makeashorterlink.com/?N2315178B

How does the exposure calcualtion work with a two flash setup?

Does a 300D camera do TTL flash measurement and exposure calculation?

I'm not looking for the pro-level lighting and actually like the
available light look for club photography.

Thanks



--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.

"Al Dykes" wrote in message
...

I've got a Canon 300D and want to add a flash to my kit. I'm
iinterested in two different applcations and one flash may not do
everything. I've tried fo figure out the Canon, Metz, Vivatar and
Sigma catalogs on the Internet and find I can't narrow down my
choices.

First, I'd like a flash that improves shots like this;

http://www.panix.com/~adykes/CRW_9508.jpg

This was shot at with the 28-135 zoom at near-max zoom with the
on-camera flash from about 25 ft.

I assume the smallest add-on on-camera flash would make a big
improvement in the shot by allowing me to use a lower ISO and by
putting some light on the faces. (the house lighting was worst-case,
with just a single stage light.)

Second, I'd like something I could use off-camera in sync with the
on-camera flash. I found this flash that looks like what I want but it
seems to be specific to Canon P&S cameras. I'd like to use it for side
lighting for headshots, for example.

http://makeashorterlink.com/?N2315178B

How does the exposure calcualtion work with a two flash setup?

Does a 300D camera do TTL flash measurement and exposure calculation?

I'm not looking for the pro-level lighting and actually like the
available light look for club photography.


Here's a simple answer based on my limited experience so take it for what
its worth.

I have a 300D (with hacked firmware that enabled Flash Compensation) an
EX420 and an EX550 (my wife's flash.) For on the camera flash I prefer the
420 simply because I've gotten better results with it. It's a simple flash
w/ bounce capabilities. To be fair I have spent a lot of time on the 550
and I'm sure I could tweak it and get good result with it as well.

Here's an example using the ex420 for fill.
http://www.pbase.com/rkircher/image/44948761
This was taken around mid day on a hike. As you can see the sun is there
but w/o the fill flash I'm certain I would have had shadows cast across her
face and/or she would have been dark. Granted I'm not as far away as your
sample.

This example uses both the ex550 on camera and the ex420 as an off camera
slave. http://www.pbase.com/rkircher/image/44753957
I this case I had the 550 on camera and was positioned to the left of the
subject. I had the 420 the same distance away positioned to the right of
the subject. Both flashes were set to bounce off the 9' high white ceiling.

Now mind you, I'm no pro and these examples most likely aren't the best but
I think they give you some idea of how the flashes perform.

HTH

--

Rob

In article ,
Gisle Hannemyr wrote:
(Al Dykes) writes:
I've got a Canon 300D and want to add a flash to my kit. I'm
interested in two different applcations and one flash may not do
everything. I've tried fo figure out the Canon, Metz, Vivatar and
Sigma catalogs on the Internet and find I can't narrow down my
choices.

First, I'd like a flash that improves shots like this;

http://www.panix.com/~adykes/CRW_9508.jpg

This was shot at with the 28-135 zoom at near-max zoom with the
on-camera flash from about 25 ft.

I assume the smallest add-on on-camera flash would make a big
improvement in the shot by allowing me to use a lower ISO and by
putting some light on the faces. (the house lighting was worst-case,
with just a single stage light.)

Second, I'd like something I could use off-camera in sync with the
on-camera flash. I found this flash that looks like what I want but it
seems to be specific to Canon P&S cameras. I'd like to use it for side
lighting for headshots, for example.

http://makeashorterlink.com/?N2315178B

This flash is useless as a slave with a 300D because it will trigger
off the camera's E-TTL pre-flash. Besides, with a GN of 18, and no
tilt or swivel, it is only mariginally better than your on-camera
flash. IMHO, the price ($110) is ridiculous - that must be $30 for
the flash and $80 for the Canon brand.

How does the exposure calcualtion work with a two flash setup?

That depends on the flash. If you use two or more E-TTL compatible
flashes on a E-TTL capable body (your 300D is E-TTL capable), it is
supposed to be taken care of automatically. Same if you use two or
more auto flashes (auto works on any camera). Neither E-TTL are
perfect, so you still might need to tweak the exposure, but in
principle, they do the grunt work for you.

For manual and vari-power flashes, you need to use a flash-meter or
work out the exposure yourself from the guide numbers.

Does a 300D camera do TTL flash measurement and exposure
calculation?

Yes, it does, if the flashes used are E-TTL-compatible /and/
communicating with the body. For a multiple flash setup, this
usually means you need to have a master (e.g. 580EX) or a ST-E2
wireless controller in the hot-shoe.

I'm not looking for the pro-level lighting and actually like the
available light look for club photography.

Selecting flash for Canon digital cameras come up so often that
I've written an webpage on the subject. Please take a look at:
http://folk.uio.no/gisle/photo/flash.html

For club work, however, I would not use flash at all. Learn to
use avilable light - it gives a much more authentic feel. Here
is an example of a photograph I took of jazz pianist McCoy Tyner
using available light only:
http://flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=29631309&size=o
--
- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kodak DCS460, Canon Powershot G5, Olympus 2020Z
------------------------------------------------------------------------


Thanks to the people that responded. It'll take a while to digest the answers.

That's a nice B&W stage shot. I assume it's desaturated from a color
shot. Does that make the best of the image noise in a high ISO number
on an available lite shot?

Here's one of my shots. It's good but shot at desperatly show shutter
speed. I'd like a stop or two faster shutter and a a little more
light to fill in the shadows (just a little) get less noise.

I need to take a zillion shots to get one where and the musician and I
hold still for the same 30th of a sec. Note the musicians right hand.

http://www.panix.com/~adykes/CRW_8034.jpg


FWIW I'm shooting raw.

--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.

In message ,
(Al Dykes) wrote:

Thanks to the people that responded. It'll take a while to digest the answers.

That's a nice B&W stage shot. I assume it's desaturated from a color
shot. Does that make the best of the image noise in a high ISO number
on an available lite shot?

Here's one of my shots. It's good but shot at desperatly show shutter
speed. I'd like a stop or two faster shutter and a a little more
light to fill in the shadows (just a little) get less noise.

I need to take a zillion shots to get one where and the musician and I
hold still for the same 30th of a sec. Note the musicians right hand.

http://www.panix.com/~adykes/CRW_8034.jpg

FWIW I'm shooting raw.

I gave up a long time ago, trying to keep ISO low.

What I usually do for hand-held and/or moving subjects in low light is
set the camera to ISO 1600, Tv-priority mode or manual, with the shutter
speed set to one that will freeze camera blur and subject blur. In
Tv-priority mode, I usually set the EC to +1, so that if there is enough
light for the camera to do this, I get a nice "better than native ISO
800" ISO 800 exposure index. If the light is too low, I will get an
under-exposed image, and it will be noisier, but not blurry. Manual
mode is for when the lens' quality or DOF is not suitable wide open
(which is what often happens in low-light, Tv-priority situations).

When you under-expose, it is essential that if you are using ACR, that
you set "Shadows" to zero, if you want your shadows; otherwise, they are
clipped away.
--


John P Sheehy

In article ,
Gisle Hannemyr wrote:
(Al Dykes) writes:

[ ... ]

Here's one of my shots. It's good but shot at desperatly show shutter
speed. I'd like a stop or two faster shutter and a a little more
light to fill in the shadows (just a little) get less noise.

I need to take a zillion shots to get one where and the musician and I
hold still for the same 30th of a sec. Note the musicians right hand.
http://www.panix.com/~adykes/CRW_8034.jpg

Nice shot. I think the blur from the musician moving his hand
adds to the ambience.

I agree. You would expect a busy hand on that resonator guitar.
The microphone is almost as much of an antique as the resonator guitar.
Is that a metal bodied resonator guitar?

The white-balance is off, however. If the
stage lighting was too complex for correct w-b, you might consider
converting to B&W.

I think that the direct light from the spotlight over his
shoulder with the green or blue gel overwhelmed the auto white balance
of your camera. I would suggesting manually selecting a white balance
-- make a good guess if you can't take a gray card shot under the same
lighting conditions for a custom white balance.

Actually -- with the instrument and the microphone, B&W would
look perfectly "period". :-) Only the microphones on the instrument are
a bit wrong.

Enjoy,
DoN.
--
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

In article ,
DoN. Nichols wrote:
In article ,
Gisle Hannemyr wrote:
(Al Dykes) writes:

[ ... ]

Here's one of my shots. It's good but shot at desperatly show shutter
speed. I'd like a stop or two faster shutter and a a little more
light to fill in the shadows (just a little) get less noise.

I need to take a zillion shots to get one where and the musician and I
hold still for the same 30th of a sec. Note the musicians right hand.
http://www.panix.com/~adykes/CRW_8034.jpg

Nice shot. I think the blur from the musician moving his hand
adds to the ambience.

I agree. You would expect a busy hand on that resonator guitar.
The microphone is almost as much of an antique as the resonator guitar.
Is that a metal bodied resonator guitar?

The white-balance is off, however. If the
stage lighting was too complex for correct w-b, you might consider
converting to B&W.

I think that the direct light from the spotlight over his
shoulder with the green or blue gel overwhelmed the auto white balance
of your camera. I would suggesting manually selecting a white balance
-- make a good guess if you can't take a gray card shot under the same
lighting conditions for a custom white balance.

Actually -- with the instrument and the microphone, B&W would
look perfectly "period". :-) Only the microphones on the instrument are
a bit wrong.

Enjoy,
DoN.


Here are the rest of the shots from the same show. It was an old-time
& Jugfest night. I was switching between the on-camera flash and no
flash on the 300d with the 28-135 zoom. The flash shots are *much*
better and still have an available light look IMO.

http://www.6gen.com/JUGS/

I love b&w photography but haven't played with digital b&w.

CRW_8083 is one of my favoriet club shots of all time. The sign says
Brooklyn Jug Band.


--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.

In article ,
Robert R Kircher, Jr. wrote:



"Al Dykes" wrote in message
...

I've got a Canon 300D and want to add a flash to my kit. I'm
iinterested in two different applcations and one flash may not do
everything. I've tried fo figure out the Canon, Metz, Vivatar and
Sigma catalogs on the Internet and find I can't narrow down my
choices.

First, I'd like a flash that improves shots like this;

http://www.panix.com/~adykes/CRW_9508.jpg

This was shot at with the 28-135 zoom at near-max zoom with the
on-camera flash from about 25 ft.

I assume the smallest add-on on-camera flash would make a big
improvement in the shot by allowing me to use a lower ISO and by
putting some light on the faces. (the house lighting was worst-case,
with just a single stage light.)

Second, I'd like something I could use off-camera in sync with the
on-camera flash. I found this flash that looks like what I want but it
seems to be specific to Canon P&S cameras. I'd like to use it for side
lighting for headshots, for example.

http://makeashorterlink.com/?N2315178B

How does the exposure calcualtion work with a two flash setup?

Does a 300D camera do TTL flash measurement and exposure calculation?

I'm not looking for the pro-level lighting and actually like the
available light look for club photography.


Here's a simple answer based on my limited experience so take it for what
its worth.

I have a 300D (with hacked firmware that enabled Flash Compensation) an
EX420 and an EX550 (my wife's flash.) For on the camera flash I prefer the
420 simply because I've gotten better results with it. It's a simple flash
w/ bounce capabilities. To be fair I have spent a lot of time on the 550
and I'm sure I could tweak it and get good result with it as well.



Is that the "russian" hack ? I've installed it and it reports version 1.1.1.
Is there anything newer?

--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.

In article , wrote:
In message ,
(Al Dykes) wrote:

Thanks to the people that responded. It'll take a while to digest the answers.

That's a nice B&W stage shot. I assume it's desaturated from a color
shot. Does that make the best of the image noise in a high ISO number
on an available lite shot?

Here's one of my shots. It's good but shot at desperatly show shutter
speed. I'd like a stop or two faster shutter and a a little more
light to fill in the shadows (just a little) get less noise.

I need to take a zillion shots to get one where and the musician and I
hold still for the same 30th of a sec. Note the musicians right hand.

http://www.panix.com/~adykes/CRW_8034.jpg

FWIW I'm shooting raw.

I gave up a long time ago, trying to keep ISO low.

What I usually do for hand-held and/or moving subjects in low light is
set the camera to ISO 1600, Tv-priority mode or manual, with the shutter
speed set to one that will freeze camera blur and subject blur. In
Tv-priority mode, I usually set the EC to +1, so that if there is enough
light for the camera to do this, I get a nice "better than native ISO
800" ISO 800 exposure index. If the light is too low, I will get an
under-exposed image, and it will be noisier, but not blurry. Manual
mode is for when the lens' quality or DOF is not suitable wide open
(which is what often happens in low-light, Tv-priority situations).

When you under-expose, it is essential that if you are using ACR, that
you set "Shadows" to zero, if you want your shadows; otherwise, they are
clipped away.

I'm drawing a blank on what "ACR" stands for and have not heard of
setting shadows to zero which I can sort of understand but have never
seen instructions for, in camera. I can do it in photoshop
but it can be a PITA.

--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.

In message ,
(Al Dykes) wrote:

I'm drawing a blank on what "ACR" stands for and have not heard of
setting shadows to zero which I can sort of understand but have never
seen instructions for, in camera. I can do it in photoshop
but it can be a PITA.

ACR is "Adobe Camera RAW". It has a setting called "shadows", which,
when set to a number greater than zero, renders the darkest shadows in
the RAW data as black. In a well-eposed image, this increases contrast
without losing much detail, but in under-exposed images, that range is
more likely to contain needed detail, and it is blackened away if the
shadow setting is above zero.

If you're shooting JPEGs, and not RAW, then they are most likely
rendered in-camera much like ACR does with "shadows" set higher than
zero.
--


John P Sheehy