--- Maciej_Dr�bka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi there everyone,
>
<snip>
> And now -- to the point. Fill-in flash has been one
> of the most vague photographic terms that I've seen
> discussed on various occassions. I've seen things
> like 'use your flashgun for a nice fill-in' or 'a
> little bit of fill-in flash would be a good idea
> with this type of shot.'
>
> My question: is there a fixed definition of fill-in
> flash? My camera setup is an EOS 50e with a couple
> of lenses and a 550EX. I sometimes use my flash
> unit outdoors when the bright sun produces ugly
> shadows on my subject's face. The 550EX is very good
> at greatly reducing these shadows. Would you call
> that fill-in flash?
>
> Or maybe fill-in is something much more subtle, when
> you e.g. set an underexposure of -2 or more stops?
> I've once seen a beautiful photo in UK's
> Practical Photography of a young boy dressed up as a
> soldier. His face was all covered with some army
> grease. The photo was taken with a touch of flash.
> So the face was still intentionally dark and dirty,
> but there were also clear sparkles in the boy's eyes
> that made the shot much more lively. Would that be
> fill-in? And how to add a very tiny amount of flash
> when using the EOS setup I use?
>
> I hope I've somehow managed to get my point through
> all this confusion. I'd be grateful for your
> feedback.
>
Hi Maciek,
My own personal definition of fill flash is when flash
is not the *main* source of light. As soon as the
flash becomes the primary light source it's no longer
*fill* flash.
My definition of "not the main light source" is very
widespread. Fill flash can be equal in intensity to
the main lighting source to largely eliminate shadows
or it can be (and usually is) more subtle than that
with a light fill effect of one, two or more stops
below ambient light levels. It can also be simply
providing that catchlight you mentioned in the eyes to
add a bit of sparkle to an image.
So I view it as running the whole range of "non
primary" lighting illumination - just what depends on
the effect you're trying to achieve.
How you achieve it with your setup is reasonably
straightforward, but open to a *lot* of
experimentation on your part. You have a 50e and a
550EX, both of which support flash exposure
compensation (FEC). If you use Av or TV modes and
have your flash on, then you're basically
*automatically* in fill flash mode.
What I mean by that is that in Av or TV, EOS cameras
expose for ambient lighting and any flash output added
to the exposure is treated as fill flash, not the
primary light source. By using FEC you can control
the ratio of the lighting sources to manage the
contrast ratios of subjects closer to the camera (i.e.
within flash range).
I didn't mention it before, but fill flash is
essentially a way of handling extreme or high contrast
tonal areas by using the fill light to reduce (or even
eliminate) the contrast difference.
IMO the easiest way to handle FEC for fill flash would
be on the 550EX, but it can be done on the 50e body
also if you prefer. If you have it set on both, then
the 550EX setting "wins" and over-rides the value set
on the camera body.
The reason I mentioned Av and TV modes is that you
*know* the camera is metering ambient light as the
main source for the exposure calculation. The same
effect applies in M, but relies on you to set the
aperture and shutter speed accordingly. M mode can be
used in such a way that it forces the speedlite to
become the main light source, so for that reason I
don't class it as an "automatic" fill flash mode.
Program mode and e-ttl have all sorts of variables
that make it difficult to *absolutely* say I'm using
fill flash or I'm not, so for that reason I usually
use Av, Tv or M when using flash (except maybe for
grab shots etc). I know there are a lot of advocates
for the effectiveness of e-ttl and program mode (and
I'll admit it's much better than a-ttl & P mode), but
I'm of the view that I have more control over the
final results in the other modes. The beauty of it
all regardless, is that the camera CPU does all the
hard work with calculating flash output etc and leaves
the photographer with the "simple" task of taking the
shot ;-)
The main thing with all of this is that like beauty,
fill flash is in the eye of the beholder. What one
considers a good level is overdone to others - as with
all things agreement is often difficult to get. What
you will find though is that fill flash is one of THE
best techniques to produce photos that are a step away
from the ordinary.
I now find myself using flash on a very large % of
photos that I take outdoors, usually with a stop or 2
of -ve FEC dialled in, with even more dialled in on an
overcast day (yes even then - remember the
catchlights!) Twenty years ago with thyristor and
manual flashes, it was just too much of a pain to do
(for me!), but with ttl flash metering and FEC it's
well worth experimenting with. When I switched from a
Canon A1 to an AF system, I honestly think that ttl
flash was of more benefit to my results than AF. After
all I *was* quite capable of focusing manually, but
fill flash was another story......
Sorry about the long post, but I honestly believe it's
a technique well worth using!!
Regards
Gary
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
http://auctions.yahoo.com/
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
