Flash Fill Light (Caution: Content Likely to Offend) (Not for the Squeamish!)

Hi All,

We had a bit of a discussion on fill light a few weeks ago - for those who aren't familiar with it's "RAW Power" (pun intended :)), I thought I'd post you this example of "yours truely" testing lighting setups in my studio today ...

The first is straight out the camera, with fill light set to 0:

https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/fo...8&d=1269850971

The second is the same RAW shot reprocessed with the fill light set to 100 (max). No other changes to either image.

https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/fo...9&d=1269850971

This 3rd shot is with fill light set to 0, but the image "recovered" using image -> Adjustments -> shadow / Highlight (with the shadow maxed out).


https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/fo...0&d=1269855019

I think it illustrates the golden rule of "anything you CAN do in the RAW converter you SHOULD do in the RAW converter) (with the exception of sharpening!).

See you all in my nightmares ...

... Mauhahahahha :)

Colin

You look really intelligent, chic, and sophisticated. Even with the fill light turned up. I think I need to do a RAW shot of myself and turn up the blacks.:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by carregwen

Colin

You look really intelligent, chic, and sophisticated.

---

See, you CAN fool some of the people all the time! :eek: Many say I'm more like an "old woman" than a "chic" though!

Might be worth doing the same thing with a humble JPEG to see the difference? I agree about always using RAW. There is just so much difference in ability to make changes without too much loss.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by carregwen

Might be worth doing the same thing with a humble JPEG to see the difference?

---

I just tried it ... using ACR on the JPEG produces a result similar to photo #3, as did using shadow / highlights on the same file from within Photoshop.

hi colin and rob!
now i know the power of "fill light"...
however, i cannot find the fill light adjustment in "digital photo pro" software bundled in my eos 50d.
is there any?

Isabelo

I have V3.6 of DPP and it has a slider called 'shadow' which seems to do a similar thing in lifting the shadow detail. What version do you have?

the latest version is 3.8 but it doesn't seem to have much extra over previous versions. http://software.canon-europe.com/sof...875.asp?model=

Great visual for how the fill light works. Thank you! That said, I really like the first picture the most. Turn your face to the right and you'd have a wonderful, natural shot. You won't show that last one to small children, will you:)?

Myra

It's okay - I didn't look!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by carregwen

Isabelo

I have V3.6 of DPP and it has a slider called 'shadow' which seems to do a similar thing in lifting the shadow detail. What version do you have?

the latest version is 3.8 but it doesn't seem to have much extra over previous versions. http://software.canon-europe.com/sof...875.asp?model=

---

That stuff is great and I just did this with it, I wished I knew about it earlier, but now I've paid for PSE :(
http://i40.tinypic.com/2vbl7yr.jpg
Shadows is exactly the same as fill light but you can save to RAW with this, however I noticed there isn't such a wide ev range as with ACR which has some other things to play with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arith

That stuff is great and I just did this with it, I wished I knew about it earlier, but now I've paid for PSE :(
http://i40.tinypic.com/2vbl7yr.jpg
Shadows is exactly the same as fill light but you can save to RAW with this, however I noticed there isn't such a wide ev range as with ACR which has some other things to play with.

---

DPP is OK for basic RAW editing, but as you say you can't do the fancy fandango stuff (whatever that is). Nice cottage - it's not for sale is it - I fancy a move?

I expect it probably will be soon since next door but one was bought by a social landlord, demolished and a rather nice big place is under construction that only the builders know what it will look like apparently.

It is definitely BIG. :D

How about putting the initial example, along with the information about RAW vs jpeg, into a tutorial or sticky thread? I think it's a very useful example. Besides, everyone should know what Colin looks like. :D

Cheers,
Rick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rick55

Besides, everyone should know what Colin looks like. :D

---

Well, that one's easy - he's a stand-in for Deke McClelland. In fact, he may well be Deke. That would account for his great knowledge and astonishingly good looks... http://www.deke.com/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maritimer1

Great visual for how the fill light works. Thank you! That said, I really like the first picture the most. Turn your face to the right and you'd have a wonderful, natural shot. You won't show that last one to small children, will you:)?

Myra

---

Thanks Myra, but "natural shots of me" is a bit of an oxymoron - a bit like "singing is to standing on the cat's tail"!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by carregwen

... and astonishingly good looks...

---

Cough ... cough ... COUGH COUGH COUGH COUGH COUGH!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arith

That stuff is great and I just did this with it, I wished I knew about it earlier, but now I've paid for PSE :(

---

PSE uses the same RAW converter - so it should be there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rick55

How about putting the initial example, along with the information about RAW vs jpeg, into a tutorial or sticky thread? I think it's a very useful example.

---

Hi Rick,

Thanks for that - I've popped the link into my "useful links" post.

Everybody knows what Colin looks like,well I think he looks quite well considering, and I will not hear anything adverse against (middle aged aged challenged)

I bet Colin can equal anything young can do, I can. I think :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arith

I bet Colin can equal anything young can do, I can. I think :)

---

Well the young folk seem far more popular with the ladies!