Well, I think I'll actually type something this time, before sending off my sage advice, as it were. <vbg>
First, welcome aboard. I hope you stick around after your flash question is answered. You'll find this forum a quite lively place, and a great source of information about Pentaxes, photography in general, and all sorts of other things, from Old English Sports Cars to "ramps" (which thanks to Stan, I recently found out is a cross between a leek and a garlic - or something like that). Not that we're "supposed to" engage in such OT traffic - indeed, some are pretty touchy about too much OT. Whatever...
But, there I go, wandering again...
Oh yeah, flashes. Well, I don't know much about them. Tom knows way more, so listen to him. Listen to anyone else who posts on that topic. Not me.
I was just going to agree with tom when he asked if flash is necessary or even desirable? It does sound like you've shot some with available light. What was it about those results that you didn't like? You mention wanting to shoot smaller apertures and slower film speeds. Why is it that you think that you'll get "better quality" that way?
I'm not trying to take you to task here. It may be simply that you want a "different look", just to see how it looks. Maybe you feel you've done all you can do with available light. And, that's fair enough. I guess I just wonder about your "better quality" comment.
As tom said, it may be that a flash will not be appreciated. I recently shot a band with available light. I told them that I'd be using available light, to which they replied, "Good, because we wouldn't really want a flash to be used anyway". The music they play is quiet and comtemplative - they do a lot of improvising, so they need to be able to hear each other, and concentrate on the music. A flash would have been very disruptive.
OTOH, I've shot several shows of a friend's Loud Rock Band. They didn't care if I used flash - in fact, at one point I was using a 19mm lens, about 18 inches from them, and they didn't even notice. It was fine with them, and they liked the results (even if I didn't).
If you've already considered all of these things, then I apologize for sticking my nose in. Simply do as the rest of the list does, and ignore me. <vbg>
Whatever you decide to do, I hope it turns out, and you should post the results so we can see. Here's my last shoot with the "quiet band", my first shoot at available light in these circumstances - not great stuff to be sure, but better than I thought it might turn out:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=383331
BTW, do you know about PUG and PAW? I don't know how long you've been lurking (if at all), so you may be up to speed on this stuff. If not, we can fill you in if you're interested.
Thanks for your indulgence on a long and rambling post - I'm amazed that you actually read this far down!! <vbg>
cheers, frank in Toronto, Canada
"The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
From: M D Giess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Fill flash in low light - balancing natural and flash Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 19:42:08 +0000
Hi all
This is my first post, so hello to everyone.
I have a question regarding flash I'd like to ask. I am taking photos of a
band in quite a small, dark venue and I usually just use a fast lens with high
speed film without flash. I'm after a bit more quality (i.e. smaller aperture
and slower film) and would like to experiment a bit, but unfortunately I have
to print a few photos for band members so I can't mess up too badly!
I have got an MZ-3 with a 400FTZ flash and when I use flash in normal
situations I simply shoot in aperture priority and let the camera work out the
shutter and TTL flash, and if I only want a bit of fill flash I take 1 to 2
stops off using the Exposure Compensation dial which doubles as the flash
compensation dial.
The problem I am facing is using flash to supplement low light levels, in
effect how to balance natural light and flash. I have always considered fill
flash as something that simply lights up a few shadows, where the exposure
would be correct without the flash but that little burst just puts a bit more
light where the scene is a bit dark. I am confused as to how to set the
camera to automatically use flash to supplement low light levels, where I can
shoot off aperture priority but underexpose by two stops and use the flash to
bump the light back up these two stops. I can't figure out how to do it, as
on the MZ-3 the exposure and flash compensation are done by the same dial. If
I set the flash compensation dial to take 2 stops off, I assume that the
camera will (under aperture priority) simply set the shutter speed
for 'correct' exposure and use the flash for fill only, which hard-won
experience shows is too slow ('soft' hands and drumsticks etc.). I understand
that I can manually set the camera 2 stops underexposed and set the flash
exposure to 2 stops over, but there's so much going on I always miss shots if
I have to manually balance exposure - poor AF doesn't help, and the shutter
speed dial is a pig to turn with the flash mounted (little camera and big
fingers!) I would hence like to automate the process, does anyone know if
this is possible?
As you can probably see, I'm quite new to the flash area, any advice or comments would be greatly appreciated.
Many thanks
Matt
_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your messages with MSN Premium. Get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
