Flash Question - Near/Far objects

[losfp]

I ran into a couple of problems 2 weekends ago, shooting candids for my friend's wedding. One of them, and kind of one that has been bugging me for a while, is how to maintain good exposure balance between objects that are different distances away, while using a flash. For example:



As you can see, the couple's hands are MUCH brighter than their faces. While I made sure the faces were correctly exposed, the bright hands are still annoying. Could I have done anything to minimise this?

[NikonUser]

I'm no flash expert but I don't think there is anything you could do here.

As far as I know the light output is quatered everytime the distance is doubled so even fairly short distances in subject from the flash can have very different exposures.

You could however do some dodging/burning (can't remember which one makes it darker ) in Photoshop quite easily to fix it.

Paul

[wendellt]

get a sc-28 cord use the flash away from the camera body, hold the flash closer to the faces

[losfp]

Thanks guys, I'll try each suggestion. might be easier to photoshop though, as it's not always practical to use an external cord.

[PiroStitch]

Could have tried to use wireless flash instead of sc cord

[big pix]

I'm no flash expert but I don't think there is anything you could do here.

As far as I know the light output is quatered everytime the distance is doubled so even fairly short distances in subject from the flash can have very different exposures.

You could however do some dodging/burning (can't remember which one makes it darker ) in Photoshop quite easily to fix it.

Paul

Dodge tool will lighten....... burn tool will darken.........

the hands are closer to the flash and are getting more light than the faces which are further back or away from the flash........ simple answer

[Antsl]

The problem of light falloff is more technically desribed by "the inverse square law". What happens is that as the light spreads out to cover the increased area of a scene (a four times increase in area as you double the distance away from the flash) the background gets darker by a calculable factor. The background will get 2 stops less light than a subject half the distance away and if it is four times the distance away it will get 4 stops less light (1/16th the amount of light).

It is for this reason many serious photographers (and the film and tv industry) use extra powerful light sources positioned quite a distance away from the subject and background.

A more common option for most photographers is to light the foreground and the backgrounds seperately using seperate lights.

[losfp]

A more common option for most photographers is to light the foreground and the backgrounds seperately using seperate lights.

Thanks antsl, good suggestion. What you say makes sense.

Sadly separate lighting might not be practical for candids, so maybe something like Wendell's off-camera flash idea might work (if you have it out on an angle such that the distance to both the fore and backgrounds is similar, it might work...)

thanks all for your comments. The 'ole SB800 is a lot of fun, but sure opens up many cans of worms of its own.

[Matt. K]

If using a single, on camera flash then avoid the situation altogether or be prepared for some Photoshop time.

[Mj]

Yep... the only practical option for this kind of situation is to photoshop it better. Setting up the lighting to properly suit this or even to organise the flash off camera and at a distance to compensate is not often easily done without a lot to hoohaa and whilst you might manage to improve this shot you'll likely proceed to miss a dozen others.

Just dodge the hands and the hot flash spots on her face and you've got a nice moment captured that they'll enjoy.