Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Post Your Photos > Photo Critiques

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Apr 30, 2005, 5:22 PM   #11
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Brightening up that much explains the noise. But to get the exposure right in the first place you would have needed at least another stop of exposure, and if you were already wide open with the aperature, you'd need a shutter speed of about 1/90th to get a correct exposure. Could you pull it off without motion blur..? Maybe, but chances are the elk would move during that 1/90th of a second. The only other option is giving more power to the flash. The best option though.. is to find them a bit earlier in the day.
  Reply With Quote
Old Apr 30, 2005, 5:33 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
RodneyBlair's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 966
Default

Chris Kayler wrote:
Quote:
Brightening up that much explains the noise. But to get the exposure right in the first place you would have needed at least another stop of exposure, and if you were already wide open with the aperature, you'd need a shutter speed of about 1/90th to get a correct exposure. Could you pull it off without motion blur..? Maybe, but chances are the elk would move during that 1/90th of a second. The only other option is giving more power to the flash. The best option though.. is to find them a bit earlier in the day.
It looks like Kenneth was out of his flash range and the entire scene is lit by the fall off of the flash. I'm not so confident that 1 stop of exposure by decreasing shutter speed will do anything here. If he had the available light, this would have worked nicely for fill. Otherwise, the shutter speed would have been way too low to shoot wildlife....Just my guess.

Rodney
RodneyBlair is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 30, 2005, 5:43 PM   #13
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

A stop of exposure would do something, it would get the image exposed correctly in the first place . I already mentioned that it would be unlikey to get a shot without motion blur though.

Still, finding the elk earlier would have been the best scenario.
  Reply With Quote
Old Apr 30, 2005, 5:52 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
RodneyBlair's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 966
Default

Chris Kayler wrote:
Quote:
A stop of exposure would do something, it would get the image exposed correctly in the first place . I already mentioned that it would be unlikey to get a shot without motion blur though.

Still, finding the elk earlier would have been the best scenario.
I agree 1 stop would make a difference if it were flash exposure, but you suggested decreasing shutter speed. Shutter speed has little affect on flash exposure and there is little ambient light to work with in this scene. I doubt 1 stop for the ambient exposure would have made a significant difference.

Rodney

RodneyBlair is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 30, 2005, 6:08 PM   #15
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

" But to get the exposure right in the first place you would have needed at least another stop of exposure"

I was referring to the actual exposure. You're right the shutter speed would not affect the flash. A stop more light for the exposure though would have exposed the image correctly though, but like I/you said, the resulting shutter speed would not be practical for moving wildlife subjects.
  Reply With Quote
Old May 1, 2005, 5:04 AM   #16
Senior Member
 
RodneyBlair's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 966
Default

Chris Kayler wrote:
Quote:
" But to get the exposure right in the first place you would have needed at least another stop of exposure"

I was referring to the actual exposure. You're right the shutter speed would not affect the flash. A stop more light for the exposure though would have exposed the image correctly though, but like I/you said, the resulting shutter speed would not be practical for moving wildlife subjects.
Yes, yes, you and I are on the same channel. My comments are so Kenneth understand that he does not have enough ambient light in this image that 1 stop increase in ambient light(slower shutter speed) will make a difference. If he could have achieved an increase in flash exposure by opening up the aperture to something like f/2, he would have nailed it. Agree? I suspect his lens was opened up to the max though.

Rodney
RodneyBlair is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 1, 2005, 11:14 AM   #17
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Sorry, I just don't understand what you're saying. The amount of ambient lighting won't affect the exposure when you are adding a stop of light. 1 stop is 1 stop no matter the lighting conditions, and will effect the end image by increasing everything by 1 stop in tonality. Do you agree? Also, while the shot was taken at dusk, it certainly isn't so dark to be nightime. 1/90th @ F3.5 using ISO 200.. sure, it's pretty dark out, but at iso 200, 1/90th isn't that extremely slow, so it's not like we are talking complete darkness like with star trails or something.
  Reply With Quote
Old May 1, 2005, 6:54 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
VTphotog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Extreme Northeastern Vermont, USA
Posts: 4,234
Default

This is a good technical discussion on use of flash for wildlife. Another question, though, is SHOULD you be flashing a very bright strobe in an animal's eyes? Consider that you are creating a disturbance and causing stress to the animal when you do this. In the General questions forum, there is a thread about the legality of using flash at certain times. Also note that use of artificial light to view wildlife at night is illegal in many States in the U.S. You might want to check with a game warden or wildlife biologist before attempting this.

brian
VTphotog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 1, 2005, 7:00 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
photosbyvito's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 5,710
Default

hey VT, i've seen a bunch of threads on this topic..and they've all said it doesn't hurt the animals vision..

chris would know better about the details on this though

Vito
photosbyvito is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 1, 2005, 9:10 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
Striderxl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 300
Default

VTphotog wrote:
Quote:
This is a good technical discussion on use of flash for wildlife. Another question, though, is SHOULD you be flashing a very bright strobe in an animal's eyes? Consider that you are creating a disturbance and causing stress to the animal when you do this. In the General questions forum, there is a thread about the legality of using flash at certain times. Also note that use of artificial light to view wildlife at night is illegal in many States in the U.S. You might want to check with a game warden or wildlife biologist before attempting this.

brian

Wow didnt even think about that.It is illegal,huh?I will now check it out in NY
Striderxl is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:02 PM.