What caused the shadow?

[gotrocks]

Well, I don't know if it is really a shadow or not, but what is it?

I took several pictures with the same setting and this is the only one that has the obvious "shadow" down the side of his arm.

Any clues as to what I did to cause that?

Thanks, Oh and for sure HAPPY NEW YEAR !

[SmartWombat]

Flash.
Just right of your camera lens.
Caused a small shadow down and left.
If you're using a flash on the camera, when you turn it to portrait orientation the flash makes shadows to the side of your subject.

Looks like a nice white suspended ceiling, so ideal for firing the flash straight up and bouncing the light around to get a smoother light with no deep shadows.
But that needs a flash with a tilt head, not the built-in flash on your camera.

[Grandpaw]

To me it looks more like a double exposure due to camera movement. Enlarge it and take a look. You can see it in the top and left side in the bar stool in the picture you have posted here, Jeff

[draymorton]

What was the shutter speed?

[A.M.D.A.]

To me it looks more like a double exposure due to camera movement. Enlarge it and take a look. You can see it in the top and left side in the bar stool in the picture you have posted here, Jeff

I'm with SmartWombat on this.

The issue is definitely flash, if you take a peek at the image EXIF, you'll see that it did fire.

I have experienced similar flash-problems many times before, and probably the easiest way to avoid it in the future is to move your subject well away from the wall, 6 feet is a minimum. Also by placing a diffuser onto the flash head (e.g. translucent tape, tissue paper, piece of white milk-jug plastic, etc.) will "soften" the light.

Try using two flashes, one high above the camera and the other, weaker one off toward the left to "fill in" any shadows. Bouncing light off a ceiling is an excellent way to produce nice, soft light – but you will need a special external flash to do this, not the type which DSC-H50's has built-in.

If you really like this photo, then it might possibly be salvaged with the "clone" tool in a computer image editing program.

What was the shutter speed?

1/200 second @ f2.7
ISO 200
Sony DSC-H50 digital compact camera.

[gahspidy]

I don't think this is a shadow from the flash. It might have had something to do with the flash, but I don't feel it's a shadow. Something more like fringe. From the position you were standing to the subject, flash shadow would have been on the other side. The "shadow" of the man's sleeve on the wall is about the same color as his suit. This is more like some kind of fringe. There is heavy fringe happening around the window panes as well. Seems this cameras sensor fringes easily under certain conditions and the flash may have been a contributing factor.

[Grandpaw]

I am not disputing the fact that a flash was used, I agree it was. If you ENLARGE this photo you will see a DUPLICATE IMAGE and not a shadow. This is my opinion and I'm stickin to it, Jeff

Take a closer look after you enlarge it and let me know what you think,

[drg]

It is a flash shadow. No double image. There may have been a large reflective surface such as another white or light colored wall to the right side of this scene that made it worse. Direct flash will almost always do something like this somewhere in a photograph.

An early lesson in using flash is to control where the shadows fall! If you look at formal portraits you will often see a slight shadow under a chin or 'down' the portrait. This is where the second or third light doesn't quite fill in the key light.

A lot of typical wedding or event photography is posed so the shadow fall behind the subject.

The use of a flash bracket to get the external flash higher or more displaced from the camera is to aim and control the shadow.

If you have to use a pop up/on camera flash for this portrait orientation type of shot, take two photos, one with the camera rotated each way from the same location. Don't move your feet in other words! Use the flash from the left and the right! Then at least you've got the choice of the best shadow drop.

[SmartWombat]

To me it looks more like a double exposure due to camera movement. Enlarge it and take a look. You can see it in the top and left side in the bar stool in the picture you have posted here, Jeff

The shadows aren't deep black, probably because of the amount of light bouncing about.
If it was double exposure, it would show up everywhere, it only shows as shadows on the left (and below) the subject.
The gooseneck by the lectern is an example.
Shadows are clearer the further the subject is from the wall.
At this size I can't see any shadow from the flag, but it's close to the panelling so I wouldn't expect it to cast a shadow.

I'd like to see a larger version.
And also some of the other images.

One thing that would make a difference is if you used landscape format in other photos, or you held the camera with the shutter button on top.
With the shutter button on the bottom the flash is on the right, hold it the other way up and the flash is on the left. The shadows may be harder to spot that way.
Landscape format the shadows would be thinner, and evenly on both sides of the subject, so less noticeable.

Yeah, there's definite purple fringing in the daylight highlight.
But I don't expect fringes in the shadows.

[bayville126]

Is he asking about the dark black square shadow behind the 3 legged table? The stool legs are OK but the table legs are black along with the speaker stand.

[Grandpaw]

Let us assume that the flash is the culprit that caused these shadows. The camera and flash were in the same place for the whole picture. Now would someone please tell me why there are not any shadows from the rungs on the stool showing on the wall or floor? They are probably about the same distance and diameter as the microphone conduit from the flash. This whole thing is screwy, Jeff

[Trevor Ash]

Now would someone please tell me why there are not any shadows from the rungs on the stool showing on the wall or floor?

It's because the camera is rotated and the flash is directly centered to the right of the lens (same vertical height). So shadows will only be cast to the left and the right, not up and down.

It's shadows, it looks unusual because, as someone else has already stated, there is a lot of light bouncing around the white walls. So the shadow aren't as contrasty as is the norm.

The pixilization/antialiasing isn't helping things.

[Dylan8i]

i agree it is flash shadow. you can also see a shadow behind the microphone wire on the guys jacket.

[Grandpaw]

The rung is attached to the leg which is giving a shadow. Both are the same distance from the flash and the same angle from the flash but one has a shadow and one does not. So your telling me with both pieces of the same stool the same distance and angle from the flash it will choose to have a shadow on one part and not the other? Selective shadows, now that's a new one for me to figure out how it works, Jeff

[A.M.D.A.]

The rung is attached to the leg which is giving a shadow. Both are the same distance from the flash and the same angle from the flash but one has a shadow and one does not. So your telling me with both pieces of the same stool the same distance and angle from the flash will choose to have a shadow and some won't? Selective shadows, now that's a new one for me to figure out how it works, Jeff

According to image EXIF, the focal length for the lens was 5.2mm. Which is at the extreme wide setting for that camera.

This means that the subject person wasn't very far from the front of the lens (unless heavy cropping was applied), so by simply turning the camera to portrait orientation with the lens barrel on top and grip at the bottom can make a big difference in the way shadows are cast. If you look very closely, you'll see that all four of the stool's legs have shadows on their left side, of course, the two rear legs have more pronounced shadows. Why? It has to do with lighting position and the distance between legs/background.

Also, note the background material itself...

Around the stool seat there is a very dark shadow cast onto a wall, which does not absorb light. Take a look at the shadows along the lower parts of the legs and compare their intensity against the one near the stool seat. Am I wrong that the ones on the legs are quite lighter? They are lighter because carpeting absorbs light better than cement does.

All of the stool rungs/legs are casting shadows, but some are lightened due to shooting angle, carpeting, and subject-background distance. Perhaps the now almost indistinguishable rung shadow is then hidden from view by the stool leg in front of it... and higher rungs are farther from the floor – lighter shadows...

[SmartWombat]

This whole thing is screwy, Jeff

Because the shadow is cast to the left, and not significantly below the item, you won't see it.
Look at the top of the stool, the shadow is almost directly in line with it.
Because of the distance this was taken from, and the closeness of the flash to the lens, the shadows aren't large at all.

Red-eye would normally be a serious problem with the flash this close to the lens ... if the pre-flash and red-eye prevention wasn't so good.

With a typical on-camera additional flash, the shadows would be more pronounced. If the shot had been taken from closer, the shadows would be wider.

I wish I had a full resolution version of this to show it clearly.

[Grandpaw]

I hope I won't be shot for posting this picture but it is in the same thread and it is to demonstrate something. If the center of the lens is where the red X is in the picture and the green circle is approximately 2ft comparing it to the 4ft ceiling tile that means the green circle would be about a foot or more away from the center of the lens Now imagine the camera being farther away as it would be when the picture was taken. Now look at the shadow on the wall thrown from the silver conduit from the microphone. With the shadow being to the left that means the flash would have been to the right of it to throw the shadow to the left. The way I figure the flash had to be at least three feet to the right of the camera. I will agree that a shadow is the problem and not double exposure. but I think it must have been from another source other than the one that took this picture, Jeff

In the original post it was mentioned that several pictures were taken with the same settings and this was the only one that this showed up on. Another flash going off while this picture was taken just might explain the whole thing.

[Frog]

This is an interesting debate.
I was with Jeff until I enlarged the photo dramatically and I could see shadows elsewhere that seemed to fit the shadow theory. even to the vase and pedestal upon which they are placed. I think the shadow cast by the stool rungs doesn't show because the shadow is on the back of them and would show from a different angle.
What I can't figure out is why it didn't show in any of his other pics and what that purplish fringe is on the window frames.
Also fringing has been mentioned several times. I know what it is but can someone explain how it happens and how to avoid it?

[Grandpaw]

I think an additional light source on this single picture is the answer. The interesting thing is that the original poster "gotrocks" hasn't been back to see what debate he started, Jeff

[gotrocks]

Sorry, it took so long to get back. Thanks to all who have contributed various opinions. Let me attempt to "set the stage",, there was no other flash, only the recessed ceiling lights. Camera was approx. 8 feet from subject. Flash is "pop-up" on top center of camera and it did do the blink-blink no red-eye.

I don't know what EXIF refers to. ( I just found out. Live and learn...die and forget it all)
I'll keep watching and try to provide any additional info if anyone wants to know.

Thanks to all of you delightful, helpful people.
I wish I could provide more info to all you helpers.
HAPPY NEW YEAR !

[Trevor Ash]

Gradpaw, I do find your last comment interesting If there is a gap in between the shadow and object like there appears to be then I agree that the on camera flash probably didn't produce that alone. It's definitely not from the overhead lights though.

Good observation.

[Grandpaw]

Going by the picture taken you can see the side of the speaker stand near the stool. This tells me that Gotrocks was at least slightly to the stool side of the speakers stand when the picture was taken. The shadow from the mic stand had to be made from light coming from the right to throw the shadow to the left side of the mic stand on the wall. The shadow of the mic cord on his jacket is to the left also. With these two facts, to me, it is physically impossible in my opinion for the on camera flash to have made these shadows by itself. There is a second light source coming from somewhere. Adding back into the equation that it only happened on this one picture this would indicate another flash went off almost at the same time from a different angle and you didn't realize it, Jeff

[gotrocks]

Duh-- after all the discussion it finally occurred to me that I did in fact turn the camera for the shot.
So the flash was on the right side of the lens not on the top.
This was not a large audience so there was NOT another flash.

I plan to take a few more shots in the same room and see what happens.

It may be Sunday but I'll post a couple or three and see what everyone has to say.

[gotrocks]

I'm back. Thanks again for all the viewing & comments so far.
Please check these and help educate me a little more.
All four of the following were reduced to 600x800.
Since I think I've found out how to show EXIF.....
They all are showing F 2.7 - Focal length 5 mm - shutter 125
The first two with flash show ISO 200
The third without flash shows ISO 640
And the fourth without flash ISO 800
They are all hand held and at times I suffer a little tremor.

To me it looks like the flash is causing the "shadow".

[Frog]

I guess they must be flash shadows then, as they disappear with no flash.
I'm not sure how they show up on his right when you are on his right. I'd think the flash would throw shadow to his left.
I still don't know what causes the purple fringing on the window frame and now I want to know why there is a very short electric cord that goes nowhere in the wall.

edit: I see now that the cord goes into a tube or something along the wall.