
Richmond, US
|
Reading the thread a bit more thoroughly this time, you've got several issues:
1) You're using TTL-BL instead of TTL. Really. TTL-BL means that the flash is instructed NOT to be the primary source of illumination, and clearly you don't have enough without flash. So that's definitely not the place to be starting.
2) You're in P mode. The P mode doesn't capitalize on fast lenses when flash is involved. As near as I can tell, it never opens up the aperture past about f/4.5 if flash is enabled, even if it's dungeon-dark. I don't know why. It's one reason you got an aperture of f/7.1. Without flash, P is a lot more flexible and forgiving; it will definitely use f/2.8 or f/1.4 when available if the flash is not enabled.
3) You were bouncing off some sort of inappropriate surface. It's obvious in the image above that you're using bounce, since there are no direct flash shadows (excellent!) but you have to get the light to the subject. You say that the ceiling was dark, neither of which are good ways to bounce light.
4) These errors compound. You were using an inappropriate bounce surface, combined with a lens that was stopped down considerably, so the light and aperture are not working towards making a good exposure. That's the reason that the -EV indicator on the flash was blinking - it was telling you that the frame was underexposed. If it blinks -2EV, that means that it thinks that things were two stops underexposed. You were so short of light that you were underexposing even though you were in TTL-BL mode, and it thought that you didn't want that much light!
> a simple point and shoot camera would have taken better shots
Yes, that's true in this case. The P&S wouldn't have been bouncing the flash, so you wouldn't have lost a lot of output. It doesn't have a TTL-BL mode, so it wouldn't have lost that output, either. It will probably open its lens up as far as possible. So probably it really would have made a better exposure. But I'll observe two things: (1) the flash would have been direct and the shadows harsh, so it would have looked like a snapshot, and (2) (sorry) most of the problems were photographer errors, not camera problems.
> To me it seems like the camera and the flash could not work out what settings were required
To be frank, that's because you presented it with a problem that does not solve. In exactly the same situation, I would have used TTL flash, aperture preferred exposure, an aperture closer to f/4, tried to bounce the flash a little differently, and then maybe also turned up the ISO higher. (The noise would be less than you ended up with, since I wouldn't have to boost the image in post processing, as you clearly did - the D300 is not this noisy at ISO 800.) Since f/4 has less DOF than f/7.1, I might have moved a little bit left and turned a little bit right, to get most of the kids into less DOF. (It would have also eliminated the lady standing with her back to you; she probably is not glad that you captured her in this position!) Only if there really isn't enough light to do this would I resort to the diffuser, which will create more of a point source of light that tends to make more and harsher shadows than the large apparent source from a bounce.
> I think one of the main problems is that the underexposure did not show up in the camera when viewing.
In fact it did: the histogram clearly would have shown the the exposure was bunched to the left.
> I also have ... a SB-800 which I would like to be able to use with the SB-900. Is there any easy reading regarding using two flashes together?
Russ' blog is a good place to start, as is Michael Hagen's book on the Nikon CLS system. But my advice is to learn to use one flash first, before moving on to trying multiples. The scenario above demonstrates a number of user errors, and until you've worked out how to avoid those, you will have a really tough time getting multiple flashes to come out consistently well. _____ Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member
My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!
|