| Coz |
| () |
| 09/05/2008 18:37 |
Flash for landscapes
|
When taking landscapes with flash, why does it look alot better than using no flash, even when the flash obviously doesn't reach what you are taking?
Also, most people use ISO200 for shooting outdoors, but if I use ISO200 with flash, it comes out quite dark. I get the best results using ISO400 and flash (either built in or gun). Does that sound weird?
| john_g |
| (Pooh-bah Hoo-ha) |
| 09/05/2008 19:45 |
|
Re: Flash for landscapes
|
It does sound a bit weird! I thought flash for landscapes was called lightning.
Seriously, unless you are using the flash to give light to the near-ground, I can only think that your camera is selecting a different aperture and shutter speed when you switch the flash on and this is giving you a different result.
| Coz |
| () |
| 09/05/2008 20:39 |
|
Re: Flash for landscapes
|
That's using aperture priority mode, so the shutter speed isn't changing.
| Overread |
| (old hand) |
| 09/05/2008 23:24 |
|
|
Re: Flash for landscapes
|
Its not changing the ISO at all is it?
Or might it be that the incamera processing method changes for when the flash is used? Best way to tell would be to take 2 RAW shots = where no post processing is applied to the shot - one with and one without and compare the two
| Coz |
| () |
| 09/05/2008 23:31 |
|
Re: Flash for landscapes
|
Quote:
Its not changing the ISO at all is it?
Or might it be that the incamera processing method changes for when the flash is used? Best way to tell would be to take 2 RAW shots = where no post processing is applied to the shot - one with and one without and compare the two
No, it's not changing the ISO either.
Thanks, I'll try that.
| john_g |
| (Pooh-bah Hoo-ha) |
| 10/05/2008 09:25 |
|
|
|
Re: Flash for landscapes
|
Can you post a couple of pictures, with and without flash, along with the EXIF data, for comparison?
| Coz |
| () |
| 10/05/2008 12:47 |
|
Re: Flash for landscapes
|
Quote:
Can you post a couple of pictures, with and without flash, along with the EXIF data, for comparison?
Yeah, is photobucket ok? Or I could email them to one of you?
By the way, I can't open RAW images on my computer, so I won't be able to do that test.
| john_g |
| (Pooh-bah Hoo-ha) |
| 10/05/2008 13:03 |
|
|
|
Re: Flash for landscapes
|
Quote:
Yeah, is photobucket ok? Or I could email them to one of you?
Yes, Photobouquet that should be fine.
| Coz |
| () |
| 10/05/2008 17:10 |
|
Re: Flash for landscapes
|
http://s36.photobucket.com/albums/e9/Coz21/?special_track=nav_tab_album
Do I have to make it public for you all to see them? If so, let me know. I'll delete them afterwards anyway.
I took those from my door. I know they're not exactly landscapes, but you get the idea.
Also, there is one of me with normal coloured hair (taken with a film camera) and one of me with abnormal coloured hair taken with my Nikon D40 with bounced flash.
| Maui888 |
| (journeyman) |
| 10/05/2008 17:59 |
|
|
Re: Flash for landscapes
|
Your 3 outdoor pics sort of make sense if you look at the EXIF data. The first (200ASA, non flash, a tad overexposed?) was taken at f11, 1/20th sec. The next, with flash (underexposed) was f11, 1/60th sec, and the last (best exposed) was f11, 1/60th with the exposure better because it was ASA400.
Looks like the camera limits the shutter to 1/60 when flash employed. Maybe someones more familiar with the D40?
As for your hair, I commented on the other thread. Its no consolation, but i reckon the 'funnycoloured' version looks better on you ;-)
| Coz |
| () |
| 10/05/2008 19:09 |
|
Re: Flash for landscapes
|
Quote:
Your 3 outdoor pics sort of make sense if you look at the EXIF data. The first (200ASA, non flash, a tad overexposed?) was taken at f11, 1/20th sec. The next, with flash (underexposed) was f11, 1/60th sec, and the last (best exposed) was f11, 1/60th with the exposure better because it was ASA400.
Looks like the camera limits the shutter to 1/60 when flash employed. Maybe someones more familiar with the D40?
As for your hair, I commented on the other thread. Its no consolation, but i reckon the 'funnycoloured' version looks better on you ;-)
Why is the shutter speed slower on the no flash one?
Thank you, but I prefer my normal colour.
| Maui888 |
| (journeyman) |
| 10/05/2008 20:56 |
|
|
|
Re: Flash for landscapes
|
You were in aperture priority mode, so the shutter speed would have been set automatically by the metering (pattern mode, according to exif).
I think the real question is why did the camera then reduce the shutter speed on the flash versions, and/or why didn't it change shutter speed when you changed the ASA to 400 (assuming light conditions remained reasonably constant). Theres nothing in the foreground that would have reflected the flash and I guess you had focus at infinity (exif says subject distance unknown for all 3 images, and no reflected light from flash detected).
I'm sure one of the Nikon guru's can shed some light on things ;-)
| Coz |
| () |
| 10/05/2008 21:32 |
|
Re: Flash for landscapes
|
So the smaller the shutter speed number, the faster the speed? EG 1/20th is faster than 1/60th? I've just got my head around apertures being back to front, now this, lol.
I had it on single area focus and AF-S and just focused on the middle where it already was positioned.
| john_g |
| (Pooh-bah Hoo-ha) |
| 10/05/2008 21:34 |
|
|
|
Re: Flash for landscapes
|
Yes, the points that have been made by Maui are the ones I'd have made.
Assuming that the picture taken at ISO 400, with a shutter speed of 1/60th and an aperture of F11, is correctly exposed, I'd have expected the one taken at ISO 200 to keep the same aperture of F11, because you're in aperture priority mode, but change the shutter speed to 1/30th because you've halved the sensitivity and so need twice the exposure.
I'd not expect the exposure to change for the pictures you show, whether the flash was used or not.
Ah!!! Maybe a light bulb moment... perhaps, when you select the flash to be on, the camera is forcing the shutter speed to be 1/60th of a second. And, because you've chosen aperture priority mode, perhaps the camera is sticking with your chosen setting of F11, even if the exposure ends up being wrong. Think of it in terms of the old sci-fi computers that blow up if you ask them to solve a paradox that has no logical solution... the flash insists on 1/60th of a second... you've set F11 and it's not going to change that... result, incorrect exposure.
I've had a look at the manual, on-line, and can't see anything that gives enough information to either prove or disprove this theory. One experiment I'd try, if I were you, would be to set 'Slow Sync' and see whether this gives you better results. Hmmm... I've just read a review that says the D40 can use shutter speeds of up to 1/500th with the flash, so that would seem to disprove my theory.
Also, I think you should check that you have the flash set to be TTL rather than manual - this is Custom Menu, item #14.
The photos you've posted give all the info needed for someone in the know to solve the problem - as Maui has said, you now need to go to the Nikon board and find a guru. Good luck.
| john_g |
| (Pooh-bah Hoo-ha) |
| 10/05/2008 21:42 |
|
|
|
Re: Flash for landscapes
|
Quote:
So the smaller the shutter speed number, the faster the speed? EG 1/20th is faster than 1/60th? I've just got my head around apertures being back to front, now this, lol.
The shutter speed is just what you'd expect it to be - the length of time that the shutter is open, allowing light onto the sensor. The only confusion is that the camera displays don't show "1/60", they simplify it to just read "60", assuming you know it will be 1/60th of a second and not 60 seconds (just don't ask about exposures longer than 1 second!!!... they are usually shown in a slightly different form so you can tell the difference).
If you change the shutter speed from 1/60th to 1/30th (i.e. twice the time) whilst not changing the aperture, you let twice as much light to fall on the sensor, equivalent to 1 stop of extra exposure and making the picture look lighter.
| Coz |
| () |
| 10/05/2008 22:44 |
|
Re: Flash for landscapes
|
Thank you, John!
My brain hurts, lol.
So when taking landscapes, what is the best thing to do? Flash or no flash? Landscape mode or aperture priority mode or aperture and shutter priority mode? ISO200 or ISO 400?
What do you all do?
| Maui888 |
| (journeyman) |
| 11/05/2008 00:05 |
|
|
|
Re: Flash for landscapes
|
My approach is: landscapes are generally 'static' subjects, so we don't need a fast (short) shutter speed. So I'll often shoot in aperture priority mode and set that to reflect the depth of field I want in focus, which for most landscapes is maximum. So I set a small aperture, say f11-f16. I set ISO to 100 to get the best quality image (ie. least sensor noise - my cameras an aging Canon 300D!).
If you're serious about getting a good image you'll have brought along your tripod, so it shouldn't be a problem if the shutter speed then ends up being longer than you might get away with handheld.
If you haven't a support handy, you'll have to compromise on something - either ISO (increase to 200 or 400) or set a larger aperture so the shutter speed reduces. Or do both - doesn't cost anything!
The great thing about digital photography is its dead easy to experiment - like you did here. So try this, then put the camera in its landscape mode and see what it changes.
| Maui888 |
| (journeyman) |
| 11/05/2008 00:08 |
|
|
|
Re: Flash for landscapes
|
Oh and I don't usually flash ;-)
| Coz |
| () |
| 11/05/2008 13:04 |
|
Re: Flash for landscapes
|
Thank you for that!
| PhilW |
| (Blue Peter Badge Winner) |
| 11/05/2008 23:57 |
|
|
Re: Flash for landscapes
|
I don't really think your question makes much sense. It's like asking "should I always use my car to travel somewhere?" It would depend where you wanted to travel to, from where, at what time, what the weather was like and so on.
It's the same with flash - you use it when you want to add in some light where the ambient light isn't reaching.
So the questions you need to ask are "for this particular picture are there any elements in the frame that I want to look lighter than they actually do with the ambient light?" If the answer to that one is "yes" the next one is "can I get some light in there from my flash without lightening something I don't want lit?"
If the answer to that is "yes" then use your flash, if it's "no" then don't. Either make do with the light as it is, or come back another time when the light is different and the thing you want to look lighter has more sun on it.
| PhilW |
| (Blue Peter Badge Winner) |
| 12/05/2008 00:05 |
|
|
|
Re: Flash for landscapes
|
Oh - on your "Odd Coloured Hair" one - the White Balance is all wrong which is causing the colour shift. Look at the white porcelin thing in the bottom of the frame, that's orange too. Set your WB to tungsten and re-take the shot. It should look much more natural. Even better, shoot raw while you are holding a grey card and set a custom WB off that.
| Coz |
| () |
| 15/05/2008 22:21 |
|
Re: Flash for landscapes
|
But the light wasn't on when I took that one of me with ginger hair. There was only ligt coming through the window.
| PhilW |
| (Blue Peter Badge Winner) |
| 15/05/2008 23:02 |
|
|
|
Re: Flash for landscapes
|
Quote:
But the light wasn't on when I took that one of me with ginger hair. There was only ligt coming through the window.
Never the less the WB is the problem (I know because I d/l the pic and corrected it, much as Erm (I think) did in the other thread.
The colour temperature of the light is effected my many variables - in this case probably reflections from the stone walls.
The WB setings on you camera are just generic corrections for a number of common light temperatures, labled to give you an idea what they are for.
Take tungsten bulbs for instance - different wattages of bulb give different colour light, and all of them give a warmer light when dimmed. Fluorescents are even worse with different ones giving off completely different colours.
Take a picture lit with tungsten light in a blue painted room and things get really complicated....
The trick is (if shooting jpg) to read the light and make a guess at the right setting. Or, even beter take a reference shot of a grey card and use that to set a custom WB (see your camera manual)
Otherwise, the easy way is to shoot in RAW, take a few reference shots of he grey card and set the WB to that when you convert to jpg.
| john_g |
| (Pooh-bah Hoo-ha) |
| 16/05/2008 18:42 |
|
|
|
Re: Flash for landscapes
|
It's not always the colour of the light that causes these problems, it's often the camera's bad choice of colour balance. It tries to make an 'intelligent' guess, based on what the sensor sees and what it's been programmed to do, but a lot of cameras can't cope with unusual images with an unexpected predominance of some colour or other. In this case, as I think Erm pointed out, it's probably the large coloured area of the chimney that's fooling it.
The easiest way to correct colour balance, if your software offers this facility (and most do), is to find something in the picture that should be neutral in colour (preferably grey rather than white or black) and use the eye-dropper colour balance tool to click on that area. This should, with no further work, correct any colour problems. With no access to your pictures now I can't try it, but I suspect the grey ceramic surround to the elements in the fire might well be a good area to try.