Stephen Lutz , May 18, 2004; 11:12 p.m.
Hello,
I shoot a lot of social events, rather than weddings. Most of these
are for friends and family, but I have shot events for pay. Just
the other day, I shot some for my stepdaughter, before she went to
her prom. I have a question about lighting small groups with bounce
flash. I shot the attached photo with a 10D (ISO 100), a 16-35 2.8L
and 550EX bounced straight up on an eight foot ceiling. I shot in
manual mode, 1/60, f/4 because I didn't want the camera to default
to f/2.8 and leave some of them blurry. Overall, the shot was
dark. I improved it considerably using levels in PS 6, but wonder
what sort of technique or flash setting would provide enough flash
power to light this scene without having to salvage it in photo
shop. Obviously, shooting at a higher ISO is one way to do it, but
with a 550EX, from close in, I would have thought I would have
plenty of flash power. The photo isn't really underexposed so much
as devoid of any highlights. The histogram was normal looking and
evenly distributed, but went flat 2/3 of the way across the graph. I
will post the original and then the salvaged picture. Thanks in
advance for any help!
Prom Girls, original photo
Stephen Lutz , May 18, 2004; 11:13 p.m.
Prom girls, fixed with levels
Here they are after a levels adjustment in Photoshop.
Stephen Lutz , May 18, 2004; 11:16 p.m.
A crop showing detail
Here's a crop of the the fixed photo, showing detail.
Crop
Jerry Litynski 
, May 19, 2004; 12:14 a.m.
The ceiling may/may not be exactly the best 'bounce' source for your light. Any chance you can find a flash umbrella (the old-style Reflectasol silver is good for general lighting of one or small groups) to use? Once you use one, the ceiling becomes a distant second choice for 'decent' indoor lighting that does not look like dead-on electronic flash.
Philip Meadows , May 19, 2004; 12:16 a.m.
Stephen, tricky one this, eh? I tried.
Marc Williams 
, May 19, 2004; 06:12 a.m.
Not really all that tricky to adjust. Easier than if the highlights had been blown. Shadows
and underexposures are easier to fix with digital, whether it's scanned film or digital
capture in the camera.
When bouncing flash off the ceiling while this close to the subject, you run the risk of
"Raccoon Eye" cast shadows. An on-camera 550EX with a LumiQuest ProSoft would
produce better results IMO. Although, in this case, you may have got some cast shadows
behind them because they are so close to the background ... but that is easier to fix than
cast shadows on the faces.
Steven's Image using Shadow/Highlight Recovery and selective levels.
Stephen Lutz , May 19, 2004; 08:29 a.m.
Thanks for your suggestions so far. I had two lenses, the 16-35 2.8L and the 28-70 2.8L. The ones I shot with the 28-70, with bounce flash, were very dark. The ones with the 16-35 were considerably better. Direct flash, with both lenses was fine, but I was careful to lock the flash exposure on one of their faces. Marc's adjustment looks very similar to the results I got with an autolevels adjustment in PS 6. I did a manual adjustment because the autolevels looked a little too contrasty to me, so I tweaked it to my taste. In any event, flash photography with my digital camera at least gives me results to look at right away. I hated it with film because I never knew what I was going to get until I got the film developed.
You're right about better to underexpose than over expose. Overexposure is unrecoverable. Of course what I want is correct exposure! :)
Here's one I shot with the 16-35 2.8L, at 16mm, with the 10D at ISO 100 and direct flash. Turned out pretty well. The exposure is pretty good, and there aren't any obnoxious shadows. Shot in manual mode. 1/60, f/4 to ensure DOF with the whole group.
Stephanie's prom party
Paul Kurian , May 19, 2004; 08:42 a.m.
IMO you have used partial metering (spot metering) and focussed to the centre point which is nearly white. In this case you should put an exposure compensation of +1.5 to get the real exposure value. Try one more time
Al Kaplan - Miami, FL , May 19, 2004; 09:03 a.m.
You need to get a bit of frontal "fill" light into that group. There are two ways to do that, assuming that you have a tilt head flash. If your camera has TTL flash metering you can use a non tilting flash by using a synch cord and hand holding the flash. One is to use a Sto-fen Omni Bounce which is a white plastic 3 dimensional diffuser that is made in various models to fit a variety of flash units.
The way I usually do it (although I have an Omni Bounce) is to put a rubber band around the flash head (Vivitar 283) and stick a business card under it. When the flash is tilted up I pull out the business card part way, bend it forward slightly, and it reflects enough light straight forward to fill the shadows. After awhile you get to know how far out to pull the card for various distances, but it really isn't all that critical. It works for groups and individuals as well.
Actually I usually stick 4 or 5 cards under the rubber band because it's a really hand place to keep a few for the times somebody says "Got a card?"
Stephen Lutz , May 19, 2004; 09:08 a.m.
That's an interesting point
I had the camera set to partial metering, and used direct flash. The way I understand Canon's flash system, the camera ALWAYS uses Evaluative metering with flash, regardless of what metering mode is selected on the camera. For the most part, I have found that when I set the exposure compensation up with direct flash I get blown out highlights. However, the next time I bounce flash, I will add a stop of exposure. Obviously, the bounced photos are too dark, so more light is needed. My curiousity is why the flash didn't provide enough light that close to the subject. Even at ISO 100 the 550EX should have had enough power for bounce in this situation. Perhaps the ETTL preflash metered on something incorrectly and it messed up the exposure? Anybody have an idea how ETTL meters when you bounce the flash? What would the camera have metered on in this scene? I locked exposure on one of their faces. With direct flash, this worked fine, with bounced flash, I got dark pictures. Grrrrrr. Next time, with bounce, I'll add a stop just to see what happens. Here is my stepdaughter, with direct flash, exposure locked on her face. Thanks!
