thirsty lady

[Javelin]

Was at the shop and was surprised to find this ladybug still getting tucked away for the winter. she gave me a few minutes to get some shots off with wireless flash. (it was -20°c outside and maybe only 15 in the shop)

I learned something here too. (besides that the shop bathroom faucet needs replacement) with seemingly the same settings but diferent angles for the flash. it would yeild either lit backgrounds or blacked out like these. I'd like to know exactly what I need to do to make the backgrounds go black like this so as it's not by accident. the only thing I can think of is the flash was slightly toward the camera instead of fully pointed away.

I shot all kinds. some at higher ISO to lighten them up and bounced/diffused light but I liked these best, they are with wireless flash no diffuser (direct) 1/125- F22 the last one is F7.1. no cropping these are as shot and mostly exposure and blacks were set to give them a harder look.

what do you think?

[Lonnie Utah]

Stellar.

I really like the orange rust and black spots on both the spigot and Ms. Ladybug...

[Javelin]

Thanks Lonnie

[david antony]

I think these turned out quite well for you. I like them.

[KevinBarrett]

Love 'em!

[Birma]

Great stuff Javelin! It was a good spot and interesting composition.

[Javelin]

thanks folks.

[Greg Beetham]

Yeah strange symbiotic relationship with the colour scheme on both subjects, makes one wonder if the ladybug was invesigating the tap for other reasons than to get a drink.
Greg

ps. Javelin you can always easily arrange the flash photo to have a dark background in fairly low ambient lighting conditions, or if the background has low ambient light at least. A low ISO and a fastish shutter and deepish f-stop is all thats required usually.
I think that why you were experiencing variations is exactly what you said, the direction of the flash and how much 'spill' got on, or was allowed to get on to the background by the exposure control, without overexposing the foreground subject. With just the right amount of missing the subject intentionally by 'slightly' miss-aiming the flash you probably could have lit the background reasonably well, (if you wanted to that is and it wasn't too far), and still have exposed the subject properly as well. Thing is, I've found that when things are really tight, in close like you were, the potential for variations in exposure increase quite a lot, and the difficulties for controlling the outcome in a predictable fashon also.

[Javelin]

Thanks Greg. i'll get a chance in the comming days to try and naul down a technique for doing exactly that with the flashes I have. These shots herre had the flash laying on it's back pointed up and it was not something I could control the angle of. The shots of the scene I have where the flash was used normally are brightly lit but I had nothing at hand to difuse the light and it tended to show nice even light everywhere across the scene except for hot spots on the bug and fixture. also it showed more ugly busy backgrounds and stuf so it was good I found a way to turn the backgrounds into a black hole. I think this would be much harder on larger subjects