Flash, or long exposure?

[SmartWombat]

Same location, same evening, same snow.
2010:01:05 19:36:28
2010:01:05 19:37:03

[Grandpaw]

I have lived on the coast since June of 1961 and we only had snow two or three times so I have no experience with taking photos of it but wonder if this would work. If you did a time exposure to get the light right and during the long exposure fired an external flash not connected to the camera would it give the the second shot and also make the falling snow show up? Kind of like a fill flash type of thing, just curious, Jeff

[Frog]

The second is the more appealing image but then you lose the snow flakes.
I think Jeff's idea would work. Might give it a go myself if we get any snow this winter.

[LeeIs]

Definitely the 2nd one for me also. It's quite amazing how those two scenes are of the same place same time. They look worlds apart as far as time of day/night goes. But yes definitely the 2nd one for me.

[gahspidy]

I have lived on the coast since June of 1961 and we only had snow two or three times so I have no experience with taking photos of it but wonder if this would work. If you did a time exposure to get the light right and during the long exposure fired an external flash not connected to the camera would it give the the second shot and also make the falling snow show up? Kind of like a fill flash type of thing, just curious, Jeff

Hey, Jeff and i are on the same channel here
I like the second best of these two, but i do miss the flakes.
Setting up the shot as you did with long exposure in the second and having a flash fire softly off camera, even hand held and shooting the test fire button should just add the flakes to the already wonderful scene.

[daq7]

Hey man thanks for posting this. Very cool demo. I guess it makes sense that a flash would get bright enough reflections to avoid getting swamped. If not I bet you could figure out a way to do a global select on the snow flakes in photoshop. Nah, on second thought that would not work. They are too tonally different to make it work. If you manage to try the experiment do post.

[Anbesol]

Ditto on definitely the second, though seeing the snow flakes is quite cool, perhaps a combination of the two, maybe use a flash and drag the shutter...

[draymorton]

Interesting.

Why not try combining the two?

[readingr]

Both for different reasons.

I like the idea of trying to combine them.

Roger R.

[Anbesol]

Damn, I hope it snows soon, I'd like to try that as well. Wombat, I am not very experiened at using flash outdoors, is that stock flash? It doesn't seem to have much distance. Could you do any wider than f/4? Were you using a wide angle diffuser on your flash? I'm sure dragging the shutter would expose the sky well, but I'm not so sure about how it would make the other background look in comparison.

[jetrim]

Interesting that while many mentioned combining the two, nobody suggested "dragging the shutter" or choosing rear curtain flash. I think this is how I'd approach it - you get the long exposure and the flash popping at the end to freeze a few flakes mid air.

[Anbesol]

Interesting that while many mentioned combining the two, nobody suggested "dragging the shutter" or choosing rear curtain flash. I think this is how I'd approach it - you get the long exposure and the flash popping at the end to freeze a few flakes mid air.

:shocked:

Looks like all of us did in one form or another, I even said 'drag the shutter'.

[jetrim]

:shocked:

Looks like all of us did in one form or another, I even said 'drag the shutter'.

LOL we were probably typing at the same time (I didn't see your reply when I started mine :blush2: )

[Anbesol]

Weird, we thought the same thing at the same time. Yes I guess I do see our posts are 7 minutes apart. Guess it must be a good idea:thumbsup: I'm kind of curious to see how the houses in the background would expose here, I've only ever drug (or dragged? Forgive my grammar) the shutterto isolate two seperate exposures, but I'm curious how the flash would expose the houses in the distance and how the shutter would effect. The two exposures were 1/30" f/4 ISO 160, the second was 1/2" f/4 ISO 400. Would probably want to not drag the shutter the whole way, or very far at all. Probably just 1/4 or 1/3rd f/4 ISO 400, or to get better distance on flash, if possible a shutter combo around f/2.8

[EOSThree]

I think shot 1 has an interesting mood to it, but is has parts(snow, licenses, foreground)unnaturally lit, the lighting that way causes discord. Shot 2 is merely documentary, and not all that interesting, except for the fact that the UK is getting blanketed with snow(how cool is that!), but is lit in a natural way, more like we would expect to see it with our eyes.

As I was reading down the posts, I was thinking second curtain with a weaker flash and longer shutter speed, I think this would effectively capture the mood of the first while lighting the scene more naturally. Then I see Jetrim and Abesol were already there.

[SmartWombat]

is that stock flash? It doesn't seem to have much distance. Could you do any wider than f/4? Were you using a wide angle diffuser on your flash? I'm sure dragging the shutter would expose the sky well

Just the tiny pop-up flash on the Panasonic GH-1.
That's why it has no distance.
No diffuser, nothing but the camera as it came out of the box

If I'd gone in to manual mode, I'd have to take my gloves off.
The tiny controls on the camera just don't work with gloves
My fingers were cold already

[SmartWombat]

Well, documentary was the aim of the shot.
We haven't had snow like this in 28 years.

The unflashed shot is nothing like how it appeared.
The sodium light was overwashing everything and I couldn't see the colours by eye.

I have another thread on White Balance where I showed a scene as shot and just with a WB adjustment. I got a lot of good photoshop advice there.

[Grandpaw]

This is what I would try if I were taking this picture.

I have never worked with the slow or fast curtain and the flash before. If I were trying this I would first take a manual white balance reading and eliminate dealing with orange snow afterwords. Second I would make the shutter speed slower and the aperture smaller giving me time to manually set off a flash that is set to around 1/2 power, just enough to catch the snowflakes but not mess with the overall picture. I would also try taking a few shots changing the power and direction of the flash. If it ever snows here I am going to try this and see how it works.

I did take some pictures of a house with Christmas decorations on it with one of the orange street lights right next to the house and the manual white balance made the white house come out correctly and all the colored lights were also like they should be. By doing a manual white balance the snow should be correct as well as everything else, Jeff

[SmartWombat]

By doing a manual white balance the snow should be correct as well as everything else

Which is what I did in Lightroom after for the non-flash shot.
I think the problem will be that the flash will appear blue compared to the cloudy skylight.
So it probably need a filter to balance it against the daylight temperature.

The best way to get rid of the sodium light would be to filter it, as it's discrete emission lines instead of a broad spectrum of colours. Filter out the right emission lines and the orange will vanish !
Urban astronomers use filters like that, so I may try it.

[armando_m]

I'll probably use the long exposure and an external flash , i'll point it up from below the camera to avoid the shade of the flakes