I can't present my client with images of 40 children with underexposed faces and nicely exposed backgrounds, and likewise, I can't present them with images of blown out background but perfectly exposed faces...
If anything I would go for underexposed and correctly exposed (background and foreground, not necessarily in that order). That way you can hopefully get some detail out on your computer later on. I know it's not what we want, but still heaps better than totally washed out areas.
If I use an ND filter won't that underexpose the foreground objects? What about a polariser (how does a polariser go with flash use?)?
Any filter on the lens will not make a lot of significant difference. Putting some filter (or diffuser) on the flash may help overexposed foreground.
Come guys, dig into your deepest, darkest pits of knowledge and someone please offer me an answer, cause I am PACKING it here!
I have very bad experiences with *istD and flash ;-( Mind you I am using FTZ500.
So far I realised that the in-built flash gives the best results. Apparently with some fiddling the 360 works reasonably well. Maybe the new Sigma is the answer?
I am afraid that it's just a matter of taking a pic, and adjusting flash power and taking another one, if necessary.
This is what we had to do in a wedding (istD + 500FTZ) - I had to try to play with the compensation until we got correct exposure, then we shot some 20 photos there (groups). I'd say you may have to do the same. Once you realise what +/- EV you can set it and view on the screen. I think in our case it was around -2EV, so it was quite significant correction.
tan.
---- (*)o(*) ----
Robert
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
