Playing with remote triggers

[Matblack]

You might have seen my previous thread with the skaters, the general consensus is that direct flash isn't good with skating so I thought I would take my new toys out for their first test. Have a look at the skate thread and compare the look to these

1



2



3



4




No they aren't very good but they do give an idea of what can be achieved with off camera lighting, I feel it has the potential to really bring out the best in scenarios and I'm pleased I got the triggers, my first pics as a ghetto Strobist!

MB

[Matblack]

Remote triggers are a way of removing the flash unit from the top of the camera and placing it somewhere else in the scene, this has certain advantages for the look of the picture, I think it can make things more dramatic but it also requires a flash which can be set manually and triggered remotely.

I used these

http://www.gadgetinfinity.com/produc...cat=274&page=1



The left hand unit goes on top of the camera in the hot shoe and is triggered by the hot shoe. This sends a signal to the second unit to trigger the flash and bang you have off camera lighting

The only problem being that there is a lot of trial and error involved with the power and distance of the flash unit from the subject, I will nail it over time but it will take some work.

I plan to get some diffusers to make the light less harsh from the flash, people used shoot through umbrellas mostly as these don't take up too much space and offer a good diffusion of light, but these things all cost money and I had to buy a manual flash to go with the triggers, umbrellas and stands next month

Please don't be afraid to comment on the pictures, I'm interested to know what people think, I post over on TP a bit but I value your opinions

MB

[Mark]

I can appreciate the effort, the skill in getting the timing right, and even the reason why direct flash isn't ideal, but I'm not sure what the effect is intended to achieve in this case. In other words, I can appreciate and applaud the 'how?', but I'm struggling to understand the 'why?'

As an aside, how responsive are the remote triggers? Do you have to make allowances for synchronisation between the camera and the flash?

[Stan_Lite]

Originally Posted by Mark

I can appreciate the effort, the skill in getting the timing right, and even the reason why direct flash isn't ideal, but I'm not sure what the effect is intended to achieve in this case. In other words, I can appreciate and applaud the 'how?', but I'm struggling to understand the 'why?'

As an aside, how responsive are the remote triggers? Do you have to make allowances for synchronisation between the camera and the flash?

I think the point is that you can light the subject using the flash from a different angle. Using the flash in the normal fashion, one illuminates the subject from the front (i.e. the aspect facing the camera), therefore, the area of the subject in front of the camera is pretty much fully lit. Lighting the subject from different angles allows different shadows and therefore, different effects and increases the range of shots one can achieve. That's how I see it anyway.

I was wondering about synchronisation too - is there any noticeable lag or does the trigger compensate?

I would agree that the flash needs to be diffused - the contrast between the lit aspect of the subject and the unlit aspect is rather dramatic. A softer flash would make a big difference I would think.

[Mark]

Yup - I got the 'why' in the general case. It's the same reason you often see remotes in use when taking shots of people in a studio setting. It's this specific case I'm unsure of. Maybe it is the contrast problem that is confusing the issue for me, or maybe it's just me.

[Matblack]

In all honesty? Because I can, the flash arrived this morning and I was doing youth work tonight so I thought I would take a few shots as an experiment. As for why that sort of lighting I think shot 1 really sums it up. If that shot had been taken with a head on flash it would look flat and boring, the shot itself doesn't need a flash at all but for me it adds impact. These shots were also taken in daylight, the use of off camera flash makes for quite a dramatic under exposed sky whilst the subject is lit nicely

There is no doubt that there are situations where off camera lighting can be better employed but this was what I had to work with today and I was interested in what people thought and of course showing off my new toys

MB

[Kitten]

I think it looks great, it really adds a sort of 'sparkle' to the photos - a sort of realness. I don't know what i'm trying to say, but I like it anyway. MUCH prefer it to the others (although I loved the b&w conversion you did).

You've inspired me to look into this a little more when I've got time. I can see many situations where it would be most useful and create far more interesting shots and shadows/contrast than you'd get with head on flash.

[Matblack]

Originally Posted by Kitten

I think it looks great, it really adds a sort of 'sparkle' to the photos - a sort of realness. I don't know what i'm trying to say, but I like it anyway. MUCH prefer it to the others (although I loved the b&w conversion you did).

You've inspired me to look into this a little more when I've got time. I can see many situations where it would be most useful and create far more interesting shots and shadows/contrast than you'd get with head on flash.

Thanks Kitten

MB

[Mark]

I have to admit that I had a hard time initially spotting the flash in #1. I think I've figured it out now. And yes, I totally agree with Kitten that I much prefer these to the previous set (which I'd missed first time around).

And 'because I can' is as good a reason as any as far as I'm concerned, as is showing off new toys.

[vix]

The third picture down is brilliant. It looks like an album cover. It might not be technically 'right'. (although I wouldn't know!) but it really does look good.