Fighting with "Fill Flash"

[DonSchap]

One of the things that I have had a continual issue with is "fill flash" of a large object.

For example: This photograph, last spring, of my rather modest 36' motorhome... note the "fill flash" reflection from the 580EX, dead center on the coach.
13833

The flash was indeed powerful enough to due the photo justice... and lit nearly every reflector on the thing... but, how do you deal with something like this without post processing it? Remote flash from either end? I really don't think a diffused flash would help, as the paint job is still pretty shiny.

Yes, it's another... "Where's Don's truck" photo... what can I say? :o It goes where I go.

[Vich]

Don, try shooting at an angle (not straight on). It will hellp the flash and the composition.

[DonSchap]

One of the problems with shooting at an angle on something this large is perspective. You start to distort the overall size of the vehicle. I will try a series of shots, tomorrow, and see what turns up. Now that Summer is here, the grass will be a little greener... on this side of the fence, at least. :D

I wish I could take this beast to Oshkosh, WI this Monday, for the EAA Fly-in, but the RV parks are all filled for fifty miles, in any direction.
13834

So, it's just me, the lil' red truck... and about 163 miles of pavement. :rolleyes: Gosh, I hope these shots are worth it... but, I'm bettin' they will be.

[Vich]

One of the problems with shooting at an angle on something this large is perspective. You start to distort the overall size of the vehicle. I will try a series of shots, tomorrow, and see what turns up.
As I'm sure you know, fill flash is for:
1. filling in the lighting gaps created by harsh shadows,
2. evening out the light created between harsh sunlight and it's shaded areas, and
3. on portraits creating catch-light in the eyes.

However; in this example the whole subject looks flat. Not taking it at an angle of some kind even adds to that IMO. I think a little "perspective" would improve it, and I question if fill-flash is appropriate for the conditions seen here. I would think few shadows, if not completly black, helps to combat the "flatness".

Also; fill flash is usually a bounced or diffused light of some kind. Usually sufficient to lighten the shadows but not erase them entirely otherwise we get flash-burn on the subject - in this case mega reflection.

Fill-flash theory aside, any case of photographing reflective surfaces while using any camera-attached bright lighting (like a direct flash) is greatly benifited by shooting at an angle sufficient to place the direct reflection out of the camera's catch zone. Aquarium photography is a great example, but your camper could be another. Moving just 10 feet past the front of the camper, staying well back with a tele, and using your flash if it's such harsh lighting that it's needed, might eliminate it. Hmmm, scratch that. If you want to use a tele, you simply cannot use camera attached lighting without getting reflection problems. It would have to be too powerful to reach that far.

I think the better solution would be to exercise this opportunity to purchase more (your favorite activity ahe?) and get a radio controlled flash system, choose the angle and focal length that best fits this need, and place your flashes where they fill / create the shadows best suited.

Blah blah ... all that aside, I would either use a bounce card and less flash, or simply no flash at all.

CWPhoto has a whole studio for photographying campers. I'm sure he has a better idea of how to show one of these things off.

Anyhow; I'm sure the real purpose, given your subsequent post, was to show us all your camper. A lovely beast it is Don.

[DonSchap]

Vich... I was being sincere about my fill-flash issue. I certainly would not take your time with such sillyness as to parade my RV all over the Internet. Okay... well, maybe just a little ;) . It took a good many years of nickels and dimes to get to this point. It's a fun and convenient piece of aluminum and steel. Like an airplane... okay, a cargo jet, without wings.

I took the image below from the 2nd floor of the manse... during the Fall, last year, right after I had the 150W Solar Powered Battery Charging system added, without a flash assist, of course.
EOS 20D w/ 18-55mm kit lens @ 27mm f/11 1/250sec. ISO-400 (no UV filter)
13877
The sun was different (I used a "cloud diffuser" on it, LOL :) ) so the lighting was certainly better. I don't really know why... but as you look at this image versus the prior image (from the side), because of the angle of the shot, the front of the RV looks nearly as large as the rear... and that is just not the case. Really... check both shots!

Anyway, as I close in on retirement... one of "our" dreams or aspirations was to cruise the United States and see what was 'out there'. Unfortunately, the Middle East has kind of damaged that plan with the enormous rise in the cost of gasoline... the life's blood of an RV... that only gets 6 miles per gallon (up or down hill). Hey, don't get snooty about the amout of gas it sucks either... when they built the thing (1997), gas was only $1.25 a gallon or less and we had all the gas you could pump. Now look at those prices! A 75-gallon tank at $3.35/gallon runs (do the math with me, folks) yep (ding ding ding) -> $252.00! Just one tank... range = 450miles. I think I have a permanent addition to my house. Call it an "emergency vehicle", when things get a little nuts (Which, in this day and age, could happen much sooner than anyone realizes).

Anyway... one of my short-lived plans was to go up to Oshkosh, tomorrow, with the RV and do the "EAA Fly-in"... but, the parks are full and even if they were not, the cost of such an activity is now $252.00 in gas... $35.00-$50.00 a night for parking... and then the incovenience of not having a car with you. That's nearly double what it was last year. 100% mark-up on exactly the same activity. If that is not inflation, what is?

Well... I'm caving in... leaving the "gas-swiller" at home and hangin' out at the brother's place an hour away, overnight. I'll have the covenience of the little red beast (16 miles per gallon or $50 in gas cost/round trip) to haul the optics and not have to sport the $100 parking fee. With the money I'm saving... I can easily spot for the SONY A100!

[Vich]

163 miles there and back, that's about 50+ gallons. Add $100. They selling A100s for $300 these days?

Seems like an adequate shot. Moving the cars, putting a light or strobe below, situating it to eliminate the roof line, meter so the roof's not blown out, and I think it'll be a great shot.

The tele was to minimize the perspective. That's a big angle, I was thinking more of a 15 degree angle, not 60 degrees. Anyway, it's OK for the front to look big, isn't it? Or are big posterior's desired on campers?

Anyhow, just offering my .02. I think PPing out the reflection is probably your quickest solution - not like you're looking to photograph for RV Magazine. Even so, their photographers do the same (front perspective with tele). Here's (http://www.rvsearch.com/index.cfm?&affiliateID=1737)a sample shot.

[DonSchap]

Vich, it's 163-miles... ONE WAY! :eek:

I'm serious. That map is a little tough on the eyes.

Anyway... as big as she is... jockeying her around on the driveway may be my only real solution for a good shot. She's just too tight against the front of the garage to make for a good front angle view.

Besides, to be honest, I'd much rather get her on the road... it just feels better... not being parked in the driveway!

13900
Places like... why, Devil's Tower, Wyoming.