What is Digg?41 Comments
- quomen, on 10/12/2007, -2/+33I don't think he would.
- mroo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+21I would much rather use a flash / increasing exposure at 400 ISO than crank the ISO up to 1600, the noise in the final image is ridiculous..
"Lightening the background" is not the only purpose of slow sync.. It can also be used to depict movement in a photograph.
eg.. In particular a Rear curtain slow sync is good for getting the light trails of cars at night while still getting a crisp image of the actual car.
Rear curtain = Shutter opens.. exposure.. flash.. shutter closes ( result: trails follow car )
Front curtain = Shutter opens.. flash.. exposure.. shutter closes ( result: trails infront of cars direction ) - Double-Z, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15Not everyone is blessed with your immense knowledge, you know.
- crazzy88ss, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15Digg needs a photography tips section.
- Narwaffle, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Read the description:
"Slow Sync Flash[!] is a function found on many cameras that tells your camera to shoot with both a longer shutter speed as well as [!]firing the flash[!]."
*Coughs* - bhavi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Actually DSLRs these days do a much better job at handling high ISOs than point and shoots so you can afford to crank it up a notch.
As for aperture, unless you're specifically going in for a low depth of field image, select a smaller aperture to make your images sharper. - mroo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Direct "on-top" of camera flash is bad in all conditions but bright sunlight ( eg. used as a fill light not a primary light ).
This doesn't mean that flash is bad. In fact, a good set of flashes / constant lights will get you much better results in all fields of photography where it is practical to control the subject lighting.
Raising the ISO is bad, particularly worse on CMOS sensors. This is because it increases 'noise' in the sensor. - suckfone, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7I know that different kinds of photography require different approaches, but I avoid using flash until there are no other options left. Bump up the ISO, open up the aperture, get a mini-tripod/sandbag, get a prime lens, whatever it takes to avoid using a flash. Even if I have to use the pop-up flash on my DSLR, I keep a cheapo pop-up flash diffuser in my bag with me to make it less harsh. This probably doesn't apply to everybody with a digicam, but if your camera has a slow-sync flash function, it will definitely let you raise the ISO, and there are plenty of DIY methods for point-and-shoot camera flash diffusers (I used to use a post-it note for it, but YMMV).
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -10/+14This article is so outdated. In the 1990s, one would recommend slow sync flash to brighten up a subject and their background. The problem with articles like this (which the article does acknowledge) is that slow sync flash has the tendency to BLUR your pictures, so it's not really user friendly. The vast majority of casual photographers don't carry tripods with them.
Nowadays, just buy a digital single lens reflex camera and crank up the ISO to 1600, use a wide aperture of 1.8 to 2.8, and you will get good night time shots of subjects. Use a bounce flash if you must lighten up your subject, but never flash directly on a subject or it'll wash out their face. - undersky, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@ solarwinds
No, slow sync flash will highlight the object closer to lens, thus making its blur-shadow insignificant, also can create a "motion" feeling. By using slow-sync flash one actually can minimize the negative effect of blur.
@ mroo
No, now days 1600 ISO is actually not grainy as you think. With Canon's digit 3 the noise is actually very low at such high ISO.
Just check out this picture I took by using slow-sync. The "motion effect" was created by panning the lens at the same speed as the subject.
http://public.fotki.com/undersky/slow_sync_digg/img1726.html
lens: 24-70mm F2.8L
camera: digital rebel xt
shutter: 1/8 second
aperture: F 2.8
ISO 400
focal length: 24 mm x 1.6
flash: 430ex - grumpyrain, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6> I would much rather use a flash / increasing exposure at 400 ISO than crank the ISO up to 1600, the noise in the final image is ridiculous..
I would take 1600 noise over a camera shake blurred 400 image. When printed, even 1600 looks like a film grain.
I agree though on your other point. Car trails look awesome with rear curtain. - 44sunsets, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@mroo:
Most CMOS sensors found on DSLRs produce far less noise than their CCD counterparts. - 8hifty, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2What a coincidence! I was doing this over the weekend while photographing my son playing with one of his toys that lights up. Really cool effects.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I enjoy it when I have the time but the return on the time invested is negligible. Not to say you shouldn't enjoy the darkroom work but DSLR vs 35mm film is a real no brainer -- from both a technical and artistic stand point digital is just as good and faster.
That said, I still do some medium format photography and make my own prints -- I've yet to see digital provide the same tonal range that good 120 film can. - ahawks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@Spoonicus
No! NO NO NO. Just no.
HDR is so over used these days. You'r supposed to take 3 shots of the same scene (IE: NO MOVING OBJECTS), with different exposure brackets (one under, one middle, and one over-exposed). Applying HDR to a moving scene, which this technique is specifically for, is just retarded.
The idea is to create an image with a dynamic range similar to that of the human eye. That means you can see details in the dark and bright areas of the scene. It should look as realistic as possible. - cwshea, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I just tried this out, and it looks pretty cool.
Try moving the camera and the object (your hand, for example) at the same speed. It's a neat effect.
Your object (hand?) also looks a bit ghost-like. - smacman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2That is a wicked web site! Thanks for the link..
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I used to think like you too, suckfone. Just like learning to use the settings on your camera, learning to use a full-featured flash can take time and patience but can result in a great opportunity to improve your photos. When I get things "right" you can't tell that I've used a flash at all -- the lighting looks natural but what I've done is get rid of bad shadows and improved my shutter speed/iso.
Natural light is only good if it's good natural light. A good flash used well can save you from a noon-time disaster and make interior evening shots a breeze. - tcybulski, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3a really cool side effect of this is that, if people are moving while you're taking the photo, you'll get a sharp focused image of them plus a faint time-lapse effect with the rest of their movement which almost looks like their ghost. it's a lot of fun with jumping, running, etc.
- stalinvlad, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@solarwind
All he/she had to do was read the fine article - borninda818, on 10/12/2007, -7/+8Never thought about doing this, although it certainly makes sense. My photo teacher's gunna be impressed.
- Etheo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2For something so obvious you'd think I would have figured it out earlier... but I had not explored this much fun until I dugg this article!
- syco123, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Canon calls this 'Second Curtain Sync' and can be found in the custom functions.
It's also known as 'rear sync flash'
http://www.GoingManual.com/photo/tutorials.php?tutid=104#rearsync - daridave, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It works great, I concur with the article.
I had a wedding last saturday and I did just that -- like the article says, it made some pretty sweet pictures: the subjects looked spot-on and the rest of the dance floor was visible, with very slight blur, but it's actually a neat effect when people are dancing.
...even better once the MC started handing down lightsticks. :) - dacheetah, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Digging down also servers to bury comments that make statements that are incorrect. If he had been dug up then others would start to get confused. If he had stated it as a question, and it hadn't been so clear in the article, then he probably wouldn't have been dugg down (at least not so harshly), but he made a statement, as though he knew better than the author, and it was wrong. Further the article is rather clear. Hence he was dugg down.
- solarismach5, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1People who are talking about problems with noise with High ISOs should try this, works great :)
http://www.neatimage.com/examples.html - RaulMontana, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I took this one on accident
http://ic1.deviantart.com/fs12/i/2006/308/c/b/Danny_by_raulmontana.jpg
I think it came out pretty cool - richardiscool, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1And you're all set for noisy photos!
- maexus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Am I the only one who still enjoys using a film SLR and living in the dark room. Photoshop is nice and DSLRs giving you instant feedback for an image but in my mind, just can't beat film.
- nikfix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I just ordered my Nikon D80 and can't wait to give this a go.
- siteie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Just saw someone mention Digg needs a photography section - check out www.photographyvoter.com , quite an active community on there
- Spoonicus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Yes indeed.. try this with HDR. niiiice.
- obliviousfool, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1This comment, like the article, is about digital photography.
If you *have* to use flash, the slow sync flash is usually the way to go. Otherwise, on most cameras I have used, you get a black background which doesn't really do much to frame your subjects. One thing you can do to stabilize camera shake is to use a 2 second timer so you can hit the shutter button and have a short time to stabilize the camera. ISO seems like a bit of a misnomer on digital cameras. Like, ISO 1600 on digital cameras doesn't really compare to ISO 1600 film. If you have some ambient light, I say rock the ISO. However, on the cameras I have used ISO 800 seems like the best current compromise, and this setting is much better than it was only a few years ago. These sensors seem to get faster all the time. You will still need *some* light. The great thing about digital photography is that you waste absolutely nothing by taking test shots. Take some at 1600. Take some at 800. Take some at 400. If you (for some reason) combine ISO 1600 with a slow sync flash you will probably get a washed out mess. In other words, I'd start with the high ISO and work my way down until I get mostly black. Then I'd try the slow sync flash. Within 5 or 6 shots I'd have my ideal setting and as long as the lighting didn't change I'd snap pictures that way for a while. FWIW, I think blurry backgrounds are still better than no backgrounds. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3Not sure why people are digging down the original poster.......it's like a high school mentality of digging down people if you don't understand photography. Hell, just explain the concept to the guy, photography is all about learning. When you digg people down for not understanding a concept, you are the one who is ignorant for not sharing what knowledge you know.
Anyway, the camera flash or external lighting is needed along with the longer shutter speeds in order to do a slow sync flash. Without the flash, like what you described, the primary subject in front of you won't be lit up at all. - undersky, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1This is an example of a ISO 1600 picture that you cannot see any noise
http://public.fotki.com/undersky/my_traveling/winter_break_trips/tokyo/img_7389.html - Desimat0r, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1That guy in the first picture looks like an absolute *****. Who's with me?
- rubah, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0This has a name? And here I thought all photographers knew about using flash *and* the appropriate aperture/shutter speeds!
- RobototoboR, on 10/12/2007, -19/+15This should be under the "No *****" category.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -10/+1Or you can just use PhotoShop...
- omarciddo, on 10/12/2007, -16/+1Damn, you beat me to this.
- FeartheKnighted, on 10/12/2007, -19/+0Most digital cameras now-a-days do this automatically if you select no flash. They will increase the exposure time a little to get more light in, so you have to be careful when taking pictures of fast moving objects.
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 