Too much flash?

[bajadreamer]

I am experimenting with off camera flash in my backyard. This shot was taken with a Canon R5 and a 600 f4.0 lens from a distance of 20' (1/100 sec SS, 800 ISO, f 5.6 which was with an EC of -1/3

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

). The flash was set at 1/32 on manual and was located approximately 5' from the bird at about a 30 degree angle compared to the camera-bird axis. The bird was in a shaded area in bright overcast conditions.
While the colors and the detail are good, the bird and flower appear very flat. Any thoughts on how to improve this shot and future shots?

 

[DRwyoming]

Well it's definitely a Key Flashed image meaning the flash is the dominant light source as opposed to Fill Flash where flash is turned down another stop or more and just used fo fill in shadow detail. I sometimes use key flash in winter conditions when backgrounds would otherwise be very bright and distracting. IOW, I'll turn down the main camera exposure comp a stop or two to darken the overall scene and then key flash the bird to make it pop against that darker background. Your shot is a bit like that. Key flash works best in very clean scenes that won't cast a lot of obvious flash shadows off of things like branches, leaves and flower petals.

The issues I see are that the use of a single flash is fairly obvious with the shadows on the flower petals and the somewhat unusual lighting pattern on the bird's head with that streak of shadow where you wouldn't expect it. So yeah, from those standpoints I'd probably bring down the flash brightness another half to full stop but also might position the flash a bit higher and perhaps a bit more central to the lens axis for a more natural lighting pattern.

Don't get me wrong, it's still a very nice image with a crisp main subject, great composition and good colors but I agree with you that the flash look is a bit much and could be improved.

 

[PhilcTx]

The image is nice but the birds eye is dead with no catchlight which adds a spark of life to an image.

If you have another flash it could be used on the opposite side of the bird with a similar or reduced output. The higher output flash becomes the main/key light and the other reduced flash the fill light. Lots to play with and not difficult but could start down the rabbit hole of lighting ratios, etc.

 

[bajadreamer]

Well it's definitely a Key Flashed image meaning the flash is the dominant light source as opposed to Fill Flash where flash is turned down another stop or more and just used fo fill in shadow detail. I sometimes use key flash in winter conditions when backgrounds would otherwise be very bright and distracting. IOW, I'll turn down the main camera exposure comp a stop or two to darken the overall scene and then key flash the bird to make it pop against that darker background. Your shot is a bit like that. Key flash works best in very clean scenes that won't cast a lot of obvious flash shadows off of things like branches, leaves and flower petals.

The issues I see are that the use of a single flash is fairly obvious with the shadows on the flower petals and the somewhat unusual lighting pattern on the bird's head with that streak of shadow where you wouldn't expect it. So yeah, from those standpoints I'd probably bring down the flash brightness another half to full stop but also might position the flash a bit higher and perhaps a bit more central to the lens axis for a more natural lighting pattern.

Don't get me wrong, it's still a very nice image with a crisp main subject, great composition and good colors but I agree with you that the flash look is a bit much and could be improved.

I thought I was going to get a fill flash look, but obviously failed. I am not a flash guru by any means, but my rule of thumb is that if ambient light predominates, flash can be used on camera and I typically use it in TTL at -2 or -3 FEC. If the flash is the dominant light source, I take it off camera and usually use it in manual. This one surprised me when I put on the computer at how much flash I got. I guess (my back yard is tiny so my options are limited) I need to take the flash down to 1/128 and elevate it. Thanks for your thoughts.

 

[bajadreamer]

The image is nice but the birds eye is dead with no catchlight which adds a spark of life to an image.

If you have another flash it could be used on the opposite side of the bird with a similar or reduced output. The higher output flash becomes the main/key light and the other reduced flash the fill light. Lots to play with and not difficult but could start down the rabbit hole of lighting ratios, etc.

One of the objectives I had when moving the flash off the camera was to avoid "steel eye". You are correct-the catchlight is smaller than I expected. The flash was naked-no softbox. My backyard is so small that a 2nd flash off camera will be difficult but I need to experiment some. Thanks for your thoughts.

 

[kimball]

This is how I personally think about off-camera flash, with the huge caveat that I've never used it on wildlife:

1) Diffusion. Use as large of a softbox/umbrella as possible to create the softest transitions from light to shadow as possible.
2) Angle. Always give it an interesting angle, usually from above. When in doubt, put it 2-3 feet above and at a 45º angle to your subject. Unless you're stuck with the flash being attached to your hot-shoe, it should never, ever be on the same axis as the camera.
3) Distance. The closer the flash to your subject, the more quickly the light will fall off. Usually this is a good thing, because it creates interesting & yet still soft shadows on the side of the subject not lit directly by the flash.
4) Power. Season to taste, knowing that less is more.

I don't actually think this was too powerful. I think you missed #1 and #2: no diffusion and no significant angle.

But then again, using flash with wildlife may require a totally different approach. I truly don't know.

Here's a good short guide to OCF lighting for portraits that I found floating around on the 'net. I include it just to point out that usually off-camera lighting is all about the shadows you create with it, not the light that you blast the subject with:

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

From:
https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/uk/tutorials/cheat-sheet-pro-portrait-lighting-setups

 

[bajadreamer]

This is how I personally think about off-camera flash, with the huge caveat that I've never used it on wildlife:

1) Diffusion. Use as large of a softbox/umbrella as possible to create the softest transitions from light to shadow as possible.
2) Angle. Always give it an interesting angle, usually from above. When in doubt, put it 2-3 feet above and at a 45º angle to your subject. Unless you're stuck with the flash being attached to your hot-shoe, it should never, ever be on the same axis as the camera.
3) Distance. The closer the flash to your subject, the more quickly the light will fall off. Usually this is a good thing, because it creates interesting & yet still soft shadows on the side of the subject not lit directly by the flash.
4) Power. Season to taste, knowing that less is more.

I don't actually think this was too powerful. I think you missed #1 and #2: no diffusion and no significant angle.

But then again, using flash with wildlife may require a totally different approach. I truly don't know.

Here's a good short guide to OCF lighting for portraits that I found floating around on the 'net. I include it just to point out that usually off-camera lighting is all about the shadows you create with it, not the light that you blast the subject with:

View attachment 14417

From:
https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/uk/tutorials/cheat-sheet-pro-portrait-lighting-setups

Thank you for your thoughts. Although, in general, I find that fill flash mounted either in the hot shoe or on a tripod, is the only way I can use flash in the majority of bird shots. However, in this situation I think you are correct. This was a "set up" where I knew approximately where the bird was going to land and I set the flash and camera accordingly. A soft box diffuser and elevating the flash (it was approximately eye level with the bird) would have made for a more pleasing picture. I use an 8x8 speed lite mounted soft box when I am doing frog and snake pictures. I use it with a cable and hold it off camera. Your suggestion of above and 45 degrees is about right for my macro picture.

 

[DRwyoming]

But then again, using flash with wildlife may require a totally different approach. I truly don't know.

Yeah, it generally does. Soft boxes and umbrellas don't see much use in wildlife photography with possible exceptions for things like Hummingbirds near feeders. Actually the most common flash light modifier used in wildlife photography is probably a Better Beamer flash extender which actually creates quite a narrow and harsh light source but does allow the use of flash at longer distances when shooting long telephoto lenses.

But lighting basics like lighting angle and what that means in terms of shaping and light modeling are still important as are things you pointed out like 1/R^2 light falloff (which is where something like a Better Beamer can help a lot). But a lot of tools I'd use with flash setups for portraiture or product photography don't have much application to wildlife work.

 

[Capturingtheunseen.com]

I never use flash on wildlife. Ever.

 

[bajadreamer]

I never use flash on wildlife. Ever.

Why is that?

 

[PhilcTx]

I find off-camera flash useful at times. Usually for bird photos if ambient light needs a touch of fill flash on the shadow side of the perched bird. Some kind of diffusion is beneficial even if just the little pull-out diffuser screen most flashes have built-in. A Sto-Fen Omni-Bounce type diffuser cap is also economical and portable as well as the small folding softboxes.

Also 2-3 off-camera flashes with outputs turned way down very useful for freezing hummingbirds in flight.

 

[Capturingtheunseen.com]

Why is that?

It's not ethical. Disturbs wildlife since it is an unnatural event.

 

[PhilcTx]

The ethics of flash for photographing birds/animals is a personal decision based on judicial use. Of course there are situations where it's not a good idea but blanket condemnation of using flash doesn't seem justified.

In my experiences of using flash for birds including hummingbirds they rarely react to it in any meaningful way. Wild creatures live in a brutal cruel unforgiving environment filled with danger and death at all times. Any encounter they might have with a photo flash is mostly inconsequential in their world.

 

[Capturingtheunseen.com]

The ethics of flash for photographing birds/animals is a personal decision based on judicial use. Of course there are situations where it's not a good idea but blanket condemnation of using flash doesn't seem justified.

In my experiences of using flash for birds including hummingbirds they rarely react to it in any meaningful way. Wild creatures live in a brutal cruel unforgiving environment fraught with danger and death at all times. Any encounter they might have with a photo flash is mostly inconsequential in their world.

I follow the birder's code of ethics. Disturb as little as possible. There can be damage caused that isn't apparent. But, if you are OK with that it is up to you.

 

[bajadreamer]

I follow the birder's code of ethics. Disturb as little as possible. There can be damage caused that isn't apparent. But, if you are OK with that it is up to you.

Certainly I agree with your thoughts about disturbing as little as possible. I have read a great deal about the use of flash with birds and with humans and although there is some justified concern about temporary blindness in birds (owls) at night following flash; very similar to you and I seeing circles and colors after we are flashed at night, there has been no evidence of any physical damage. Analogies are used about lightning strikes being brighter than flash, but I think there is a better example to use-the sun. The amount of light that a bird is subjected to by opening its eyes on a bright sunny day is 1000's of times more intense than a flash. Think of yourself being subjected to a flash during the day-not a big deal. But think of looking at the sun, even indirectly, for a few seconds-no comparison. Anyway, I do not use flash in the dark and use it as little as possible during the day, I feel comfortable using it in certain circumstances. In this picture the camera was set on low speed continuous (about 6 fps). The flash was on very low power (1/32) and even though the flash was activated multiple times per second this bird (and many others that came during the session) never even looked up at it.

 

[Karl]

" there has been no evidence of any physical damage " (bajadreamer)
Exactly... there is no evidence (scientific/factual) that I know of that birds are harmed. However, being a birder 1st and a photographer 2nd, common sense and moderation are probably the best routes.

 

[bajadreamer]

" there has been no evidence of any physical damage " (bajadreamer)
Exactly... there is no evidence (scientific/factual) that I know of that birds are harmed. However, being a birder 1st and a photographer 2nd, common sense and moderation are probably the best routes.

Absolutely!

 

[Charles Loy]

I call this a nice effort, and far from a failure. Thanks for sharing. Simply adding a bit of contrast may make the photo pop a bit more.
Keep experimenting.

 

[bajadreamer]

I call this a nice effort, and far from a failure. Thanks for sharing. Simply adding a bit of contrast may make the photo pop a bit more.
Keep experimenting.

Thank you for your comments. I am very inexperienced in using off camera flash, especially flash that is very close to the subject. I underestimated how much flash was going to be produced at 1/32 power. I agree with you about the contrast. Because this is a "set up" with birds coming regularly to sit on this branch while waiting their turn at the feeder, I am going to try to produce a better picture initially. Likely reducing the flash power to 1/64 or 1/128, placing a soft box over it and raising it about 2-3 feet. We will see.