Off camera flash (OCF) allows easy flash use with the light away from the camera. The point being that moving the flash to the side allows for lighting that casts shade or shadow across the picture and that creates a 3D effect, and depending on the depth and hardness of the shadow we might have a natural or very dramatic image. Here the light is so close to the camera that it almost might as well have been on camera. Also this image has had too much flash, indicated by the fact the girl is over exposed, whereas the tree is correctly exposed. So we have over exposed flash creating an over bright image and even the shade side of the girl is bright.
The background looks OK, nicely out of focus and a reasonable exposure.
To balance the exposures of the two areas, use less flash or a combination of smaller aperture and longer shutter-speed, although this will make the background sharper and may introduce motion blur or camera shake, depending on the shutter-speed.
There are no right and wrong positions for OCF but when learning start with a Rembrandt lighting set-up. This involves the flash being 45 degrees above and infront of the subject, so classically the shadow of the nose falls towards the corner of the mouth. This shaddow is classically clearly defined but not sharp. For a female subject you might have more reflected fill in light than Rembrandt often employed. Remember, this is a starting point not the only way but it is very effective and has been used for centuries becasue it works so well, in paint and photography.
Thanks, Ian, your comments are always so helpful. I need to get a better eye for exposure, I tend to be attracted to brighter rather than proper for some reason. This edit might be a little better on the exposure side, but I'l work on the flash position and power. This is another shot from the same day, not sure if the shadow is too harsh or in the wrong position.
This version of the girl you posted earlier is better exposed than the previous shot, in fact it is about right, I'd say. I'd say the light position is very similar, although perhaps slightly more to the right, unless it just looks that way because we now have tones on the shadow side, which create a 3D effect previously missing.
Looking at the highlights on the cheaks and the whites of the eyes, I'd try adding a touch of red and of yellow. Then I'd darken the bottom of the shot with an ND grad or two. But I have not calibrated for a few weeks now, so I'll lleave that to you to decide.
On my screen the other one looks correctly exposed and it has a pleasing and appropriate red yellow warmth. The light is more to the side, which is better, although it is too hard. The shadow is very sharp, which is rarely a good thing in a portrait. The amount of flash is very well judged, though, producing a subtle and natural balance between the girl and the room, well done.
Just a quickie this time.
Off camera flash (OCF) allows easy flash use with the light away from the camera. The point being that moving the flash to the side allows for lighting that casts shade or shadow across the picture and that creates a 3D effect, and depending on the depth and hardness of the shadow we might have a natural or very dramatic image. Here the light is so close to the camera that it almost might as well have been on camera. Also this image has had too much flash, indicated by the fact the girl is over exposed, whereas the tree is correctly exposed. So we have over exposed flash creating an over bright image and even the shade side of the girl is bright.
The background looks OK, nicely out of focus and a reasonable exposure.
To balance the exposures of the two areas, use less flash or a combination of smaller aperture and longer shutter-speed, although this will make the background sharper and may introduce motion blur or camera shake, depending on the shutter-speed.
There are no right and wrong positions for OCF but when learning start with a Rembrandt lighting set-up. This involves the flash being 45 degrees above and infront of the subject, so classically the shadow of the nose falls towards the corner of the mouth. This shaddow is classically clearly defined but not sharp. For a female subject you might have more reflected fill in light than Rembrandt often employed. Remember, this is a starting point not the only way but it is very effective and has been used for centuries becasue it works so well, in paint and photography.
Thanks, Ian, your comments are always so helpful. I need to get a better eye for exposure, I tend to be attracted to brighter rather than proper for some reason. This edit might be a little better on the exposure side, but I'l work on the flash position and power. This is another shot from the same day, not sure if the shadow is too harsh or in the wrong position.
This version of the girl you posted earlier is better exposed than the previous shot, in fact it is about right, I'd say. I'd say the light position is very similar, although perhaps slightly more to the right, unless it just looks that way because we now have tones on the shadow side, which create a 3D effect previously missing.
Looking at the highlights on the cheaks and the whites of the eyes, I'd try adding a touch of red and of yellow. Then I'd darken the bottom of the shot with an ND grad or two. But I have not calibrated for a few weeks now, so I'll lleave that to you to decide.
On my screen the other one looks correctly exposed and it has a pleasing and appropriate red yellow warmth. The light is more to the side, which is better, although it is too hard. The shadow is very sharp, which is rarely a good thing in a portrait. The amount of flash is very well judged, though, producing a subtle and natural balance between the girl and the room, well done.
Thanks Ian, you are a great help, I really appreciate your feedback. Much more work is needed on my part.