To bounce or not to bounce?

[olgabe]

I think the answer is to bounce as much as possible because it looks more natural than if you use direct flash.. no hard shadows, and so on. I almost got myself convinced that that's all I need to know, and as long as I'm aware of where my flash is poinitng for bounce, I'll be ok.

I've been doing that at my wedding shoots for a while, and yesterday I ran into a new setup (new for me) - the reception room was about 100x250 ft with fairly high ceilings, so it took me a while to understand that my bouncing technique was working only in some spots in the room and I kept on twisting that flash head like crazy after every shot as I was walking my circles around the tables.

My question is - if you are a fan of bounced flash, what are the tell-tale signs for you that it's time to give up bouncing ans switch to direct flash? (with or without a stofen like modifier). If you have a set up where you can get some bounced shots, but a significant number of shots in between are require direct flash - do you switch to using direct for all to simplify post-processing or do you continue trying to make the best out of every shot?

Thank you for sharing the wisdom!

[curmudgeon_01]

Try using a pocket reflector for them all. The big problems with using the ceilings are: 1) you will run into that situation where it is too high for your flash, 2) you need to take into account the color of the ceiling (light reflected off a surface takes on the tint of that surface), 3) if you aren't careful you will end up with shadows on the subjects eye(s) from their brow(s), not a big problem if you can get far enough away.

If you might taking a few test shots to see the effective range of your set-up. You may be able to be 20' from the subjects or you may need to be within 10'.

[olgabe]

Pocket reflector? not familiar with those.. how are they used?

[inkista]

It's a small reflector. You use it as an alternative bounce surface.

Omnibounces/lightspheres and the like aren't really the best tool for this kind of situation (although, of course, still better than bare flash), because they don't actually increase the size of the lightsource that much--they mimic barebulb lighting which softens the light by throwing it out in all directions and having it bounce back (hence the name "omnibounce"). Mostly, they rob you of light by making your flash even more inefficient.

Remember that ambient is another light source. Increasing your iso or aperture increases the effectiveness of your flash.

And, obviously, bouncing can also be done off reflectors and walls as much as ceilings.

And, when all else fails, you can put a reflector on the flash, such as this alternative use of the Honl speed snoot.

[olgabe]

Originally Posted by inkista

Remember that ambient is another light source. Increasing your iso or aperture increases the effectiveness of your flash.

And, obviously, bouncing can also be done off reflectors and walls as much as ceilings.

And, when all else fails, you can put a reflector on the flash, such as this alternative use of the Honl speed snoot.

Interesting - have not seen these before - might try it out at the next wedding with similar conditions - thank you for the name.

I usually bounce off the walls, it's just in this particular setup the walls were too far or too close to bounce. Reflector would require an assistant I would imagine...
This particular wedding was really dark - it required 2+ sec at f1.4 at ISO1600 for correct exposure.

[Benji]

I use a bounce device similar to the above at weddings along with a high ISO that way I'm not constantly looking for something to bounce off of, and fiddling with camera controls. I simply compose and press the shutter button. KISS is my motto. The bride and groom are not impressed with how competent you appear at the wedding, or impressed how much you are fiddling with the controls or how "professional" you appear as you gawk around looking for something to bounce the flash off of, they simply want beautiful images. You need consistancy to get beautiful images and bouncing the flash off of a ceiling for one shot and the wall for the next and a mirror for the third and a bounce card for the forth will not give you consistancy, whereas a simple bounce device like shown above will give you consistancy from shot to show AND allow you to concentrate on getting that image.

Benji

[zona5101]

google DIY bounce reflector...you can make one pretty cheap ...
heres an example:
DIY Reflector-Diffuser

[archersdad]

Benji,

How far off of the lens axis do you try to keep your reflector? Every time I try to use an on-camera, on-flash reflector it looks too much like plane on-camera flash.

I have had good luck with a larger, 30" reflector hand held and get pretty close to Rembrant lighting.

[Benji]

Originally Posted by archersdad

Benji,

How far off of the lens axis do you try to keep your reflector? Every time I try to use an on-camera, on-flash reflector it looks too much like plane on-camera flash.

I have had good luck with a larger, 30" reflector hand held and get pretty close to Rembrant lighting.

I use it on camera. These shots are candids at the wedding not portraits that will be printed into 16 x 20s and hung over the fireplace.

Benji

[olgabe]

Originally Posted by Benji

I use it on camera. These shots are candids at the wedding not portraits that will be printed into 16 x 20s and hung over the fireplace.

Benji

Good point. That's exactly what I am struggling with - a balance between more professional looking shots (no obvious flash shadows, or total lack of ambient light in the background) and practicality of group shots around the table that are likely to be on facebook, and less likely to ever be printed.

Do you think this pocket reflector works significantly better than omnibounce?