Photographers - help!

[MikeJhn]

Ring flash is the usual go to but you can also use off camera flash units and reflectors. Ring flash can be a bit sterile and I prefer the off camera flash and reflectors or better still natural light and reflectors. Depends on the subject of course. Simply using a white sheet of paper as a reflector can transform an image.

Paul, thanks for the reply, the subject matter are fishing fly's, tried white paper as a reflector with mixed results, will have to investigate if my Alpha NEX-F3 has the facility for an off camera flash or even a ring flash, tried the built in flash with pointing it away from the subject with a suitably placed finger, but still seems a bit muted, perhaps I will have to try a better location to get more natural light onto the subject, perhaps a box of white card around the subject, maybe a blue back, lots of things to try.

 

[Sideways]

Off subject, those of you who know how, on Macro photograph how do you take pictures with flash without causing shadow, tried divergent flash, but seems to make the subject dull?

There are a few photographers out there who share their skills on the internet and have amassed a big back catalogue whi, and ch is like an online training resource.
David Hobby "the strobist" is a great place to start for everything to do with small flashguns or "speedlights" whether tabletop or blending fill-in flash into ambient lighting.
Neil Van Niekirk is another - his forté is weddings but flash is a big part of his style.
Joe McNally is third - wildlife, dancers, athletes, and a long career as a photojournalist.
All these guys have a lot of technical skills to impart as well as practical and aesthetic and simple inspiration...

Two or three flashguns, bought second hand, controlled manually are a powerful and relatively inexpensive tool.

In your photos above, two flashes on the fly, from different directions and different powers to be "main" and "fill" and a third flash lighting the white paper background from behind to dial it into pure white or whatever shade of grey you want.
You have a still subject and all the time in the world to dial in the flash power manually and get whatever balance you want.

 

[Spectric]

Another great place for learning is the Luminous Landscape created by the late Michael Reichmann and involving Geoff Schewe who was one of the Adobe developers of Lightroom so a good all round resource of info.

 

[paulrbarnard]

Yes if you are a pro photographer but how many people would look at the image and go yes that is from a mirrorless camera ? Many DSLR's had the mirror up feature so you framed your shot which needs the mirror to see through the lens, it then raised the mirror before the image is taken so no mirror vibrations.

Th one thing that is odd is that a given camera might be the best thing since sliced bread and expensive, when the next best thing comes out it's value falls like a lead ballon so it can be a very expensive hobby, maybe woodworking is cheaper.

Completely agree with you. I’ve actually never found that my images got worse or the camera stopped working when a new model came out. Though the fervour over new models in photography gear forums would suggest otherwise.
I still shoot my film cameras from the 80’s and surprisingly the pictures I take with it today are often better than the ones I shot back then. More due to the increased experience of the component using the camera. Also digital bodies, that I have upgraded over the years, are still being used to great effect by my kids. Annoyingly I’ve been beaten in photography competitions by images taken on my old cameras in the hands of my daughters.

As to the can’t tell the difference. There are indications that can aid the keen eye in telling if the image came from a certain brand or from a certain base resolution. The reality though is 99.99% of people really couldn’t care less if an image came from film, DSLR, MILC or phone. The single most important aspect is the composition and subject. A great composition and subject masks a massive number of technical defects where as technically perfect exposure, focus, dynamic range, noise and colour handling just reveals the inadequacy of the composition and subject.

The only time gear makes a difference is in the corner cases like high speed objects (flying birds), low light or high contrast situations. Modern focusing systems give a higher number of in focus images and are able to automatically select the right place to focus, like the eye of a subject or the bird behind the branch rather than the branch.

 

[ey_tony]

It all depends upon budget.
That's the first thing to ask where photography is concerned.
I was always a 6 x 6 cm medium format film user (Rolleiflex TLR & Bronica SLR). My first digital camera was used as a substitute for the polaroid back that I used to mount on my Bronica film camera to check for lighting issues etc.

My digital Nikon gear is very old by today's standards as it's not been used for maybe 12 years but with the quality lens's I own it could still churn out professional quality shots.
The main advantage of modern camera sensors is their response to light. Older digital cameras weren't particularly good in low light but in well lit conditions they kept up with the best.

The Nikon lens's I have were all pro quality lens back in the 1990s/early 2000s and would still give your modern lens a run for their money.
There are two popular sized digital sensors, a full frame as already mentioned and a 2/3rd size APS-C sensor.
The full frame sensor is the same as your traditional 35mm neg size while the APS-C is 2/3rds of the size of full frame. The larger the sensor generally the better the results if quality especially in low light is really important.

It's worth noting that a full frame lens mounted on an an APS-C camera will increase the focal length by 50% ie: a 200mm lens becomes the equivalent of a 300mm lens mounted on a full frame sensor camera. To get really good blurry backgrounds as used in portraiture, the full frame camera is your best tool but I have used good quality lens on an APS-C sensor cameras that can still give you those blurry backgrounds too. Once you understand then that will help you decide which lens you want.

If you want true pro quality images, look for a lens zoom which doesn't exceed a focal length of three times magnification. Most pro quality lens never exceed the 3x rule. The best quality lens were invariably a single focal length but not always practical so short zooms such 24-70mm or 70-210 mm were popular with the wedding pros and paps. The ubiquitous 50mm F1.4 (often referred to as standard lens) is a superb lens with limited distortion and very good clarity and every kit should include one as they're very versatile if used correctly..
Avoid the lenses which can be 6x, 7x or more zooms as they tend to produce images with distortions/aberrations which can show in the finished images.

A popular older camera that had many of the pro features was the Nikon D200 or the Fuji S5 pro, the latter being in almost every wedding photographer's backup kit because of it's rendering of skin tones. Both of those have the same Nikon lens mount and can be bought very cheaply and if in decent condition will more than suffice.
If going for an older camera like Nikon or Cannon, there are plenty of older lens available which will give excellent results so choose wisely.

If your money won't stretch to a DSLR then a very good bridge camera option is the old Konica-Minolta A2. It had many pro features and other than in poor light which can be mitigated by attaching a pro flash, it can produce impressive images for it's size.
I still have mine which I've had since about 2009 and has been used on every holiday I've taken so has been all over the world and other than a failed battery has never let me down.

 

[Spectric]

Annoyingly I’ve been beaten in photography competitions by images taken on my old cameras in the hands of my daughters.

I found that with photography you could learn a camera inside out along with techniques for depth of field and getting the color bang on but you were still at the mercy of the light and that something else which not all of us have and that is an eye for an image. Maybe this is what drives the continous race for the latest camera because you think it will make your images better and have not accepted it might be you.

 

[paulrbarnard]

I found that with photography you could learn a camera inside out along with techniques for depth of field and getting the color bang on but you were still at the mercy of the light and that something else which not all of us have and that is an eye for an image. Maybe this is what drives the continous race for the latest camera because you think it will make your images better and have not accepted it might be you.

It’s a bit like tools

 

[Rhossydd]

Paul, thanks for the reply, the subject matter are fishing fly's, tried white paper as a reflector with mixed results, will have to investigate if my Alpha NEX-F3 has the facility for an off camera flash or even a ring flash,

Have a look at https://www.amazon.co.uk/Portable-Filters-Adapters-Olympus-Panasonic/dp/B08DD4834P/ref=sr_1_20? these can provide continuous light, so no worries about flash sync. You have no hot shoe, but you could mount the power pack on a cheap old flash side bar. Staggeringly cheap compared to 'proper' ring flashes.
The colour temperature might be a bit spikey if you're very concerned about colour accuracy, but when I've used mine it's been quite acceptable.

 

[MikeJhn]

Thanks guys, it seems the Sony NEX-F3 has a slot for an external flash under a flap on top of the camera, so I have ordered a compatible hot shoe convertor and the ring light as per Rhossydd post above, will let you know how I get on as soon as they arrive and I get a chance to use it, dispatch is 2:3 weeks so don't hold your breath guys.

 

[MikeJhn]

Meanwhile what do you guys think of this: https://www.amazon.co.uk/DUCLUS-Light-box-Portable-Photography-Backdrops/dp/B07TNPZ6HR?