K1 & K3II Owners Need Not Apply

Got to agree with this statement... Though with the hard light the pop up flash produces. Unless desperate I wouldn't use that either..lol

I believe 'pros' would use a suitable reflector to bounce natural light into the shadowed face. My concern with the flash photos is that the shadows caused by the flash are in a different direction to the sunlight shadows so subconsciously doesn't look quite right.

Desperate times Stub!

More good points here, but with this talk of "pros" and reflectors this thread is being transported from reality to fantasy ...

It starts out with a common reality ..... it's about an amateur Pentax DSLR user who's camera has a built-in flash, a Dad out with a kid, the only adult, not intending on taking portraits, spots an unexpected opportunity, but wanting to get some control over the contrast and DR in the scene, to bring out the depth and colours of the surrounds and bring the subjects face to life. It's about a technical approach to doing that, and what is achievable quickly given the available resources.

Ultimately it's about encouraging other Pentax Users who get into similar situations to have a go and try and get that control over things and see if it helps .... see if it brings photos with a sparkle and life that a non- flash approach could not .....and of course to try and get the most out of the equipment we have to hand already.

There are indeed limitations and negatives about direct pop-up flash, but there are ways to minimise it, such as leaving space behind and trying to get a mix of natural and flash light combined together onto the subject.

This would be a great place for others to have a go and show some results and see if they can create good looking pics under similar circumstances, and for us to think about what made them work well.

Post processing techniques and professional off camera lighting are probably things for a different topic .....

I do not use the built in flash very often but I find it handy on holiday when I want to travel light. Looking through the files I found this example taken in Italy in 2013. The contrasty dappled light was tricky so I used the built in flash on the K5II that I had at the time (probably dialled down but I cannot remember now). A bit harsh but a better result than with no fill at all.

Yes, that works well! The bright highlights coming through the leaves could really play total havoc without firm exposure control. I imagine you needed to stop down quite a bit, given the 1/180th max sync speed. But it looks fine. The dark skin generally needs minus compensation and the tone looks natural here.

Hmmm, I know the KP with it's GN6 flash has been a bit controversial. Here, with the 14mm lens, the actual flash to subject distance was about 2ft. This was ok at ISO200 and f9.5, but if I wanted to shoot wider open then I would quickly run into overexposure from the flash.

I'm wondering if the low guide number on the KP is to complement it's high ISO capabilities ....I mean, people using Auto-ISO with flash (bad idea) can easily suffer from overexposure from the flash, because the ISO is chosen based on ambient light and focal length, program line etc. Often this will be totally inappropriate for flash

If KP users are allowing their ISOs to go high, considering the good performance, then a low GN flash might actually be an advantage ..... ?

I think we should 'get real' with this discussion, the shots posted by Nigel are snapshots, not professional portraits and as such are shot with whatever is available 'on the hoof' so to say. I have no problem with using fill-in flash, but I do think the fill on Nigel's shots is too harsh and too much, personally I think the flash should have been turned down lower if this was possible at the time. I still prefer the one without flash........

Cheers
David

Thanks for the reminder Nigel, that us paupers with just the K-3 and older, have a handy little flash we can use

Yes! This was for us paupers ... ..Actually there's some truth here. Not necessarily paupers financially, but those who are limited without having all the extra gear and support that would be needed for that 'professional portrait' that these are being compared to.

David, you're right ..... I am often talking about us "on the hoof" shooters, making the most of what we have , and trying to encourage experimenting with the light balancing possibilities of bringing flash into it. And if the pop-up is all there is then let's use it and try to get the best out of it.

I wasn't planning portraits ..... I only took the 14mm lens! But I saw the moment and wanted to get that lovely garden and great sky captured with a nice deep exposure, so felt it was necessary to light my subject.

It is obvious that there are differing tastes for the amount of flash effect and look. I personally don't ever think of the concept of "fill-in flash" . To me that is some auto algorithm in program mode that is likely to underexpose a subject. I prefer my flash look big and bold, with the subject, even outdoors, actually fully "lit" ..... because of this I am prepared to accept the look, which might involve an unnatural direction of light for example. In some ways to me, the more the flash and ambient light can be opposing each other the better!

Of course it is also nice when the sun and flash can combine to create a nice softly blended result. But sometimes we have to go for it and get what is possible given the various constraints.

Let's see some more examples of light balancing and control using the unsung and humble built-in flash!

I've been practicing with the KP flash recently. If I bounce the flash onto the ceiling using a reflective card (or even a shiny bit of paper/card) then I can get a very nice diffuse lighting in a small room. It's extremely convenient for the odd shot in an otherwise difficult scenario.

The following image was snapped with the KP and onboard flash bounced towards the ceiling, using the FA 77 lens at f/1.8. The shutter setting was 1/125 at ISO 400 to capture a bit of the softer ambient light too. I think it worked pretty well. Unedited image straight from camera, converted to JPEG from RAW file.

It has worked well! I think one of the main reasons I would like a high ISO performing camera (e.g. KP or K1) is for better flash work .....

That might get sound odd .... but no, as you've shown, by increasing the ISO and opening the aperture you actually create a better blend of low ambient light mixed with the flash on the subject. Now, with your KP you have extra flexibility .....say you needed more DOF or wanted better optical performance, then you might want to shoot at F8 ..... to get the same ambient exposure then you would need ISO 6400 ..... actually not a big deal for the KP or K1 (although I'd struggle with the K7!) ....so you can actually get more out of your flash, more versatility and better ambient / flash mixing with a high ISO performing camera.

Perhaps the GN6 is not such a limitation ....?

Definitely not if you look at it that way. It might also have the advantage of being a smaller/lighter unit, which with the KP is a huge positive.

It's a theory I have ..... I have heard many complaints, mainly on PentaxForums, of people struggling with flash exposures, and often they are using modes or settings that include Auto-ISO. As a result of this the photographer is not taking any firm control over essential exposure settings.

In dim rooms in particular the auto -ISO can choose a high setting, even higher if the focal length is long (to allow faster shutter speed for steadiness). Unfortunately the program will not take account of the flash balancing aspects, and so the high ISO can easily cause flash overexposure (made even worse if the aperture is also wide and the distance is small).

This can all catch out the unwary, or unaware, flash photographer. Often they might believe that the camera should be able to just sort it all out automatically and they don't see why they should be taking better control. So they think poorly of the P-TTL system and blame Ricoh.

With a camera with such good high ISO performance the likelihood of uses allowing higher ISOs is increased, so the risk of flash overexposure is increased ..... This can be mitigated by a lower powered flash.

Nigel
Great thread and discussion which definitely highlighted some of my own shortcomings when it comes using the built in flash to correct for mother natures or other artificially created shadows.
One particular piece of kit I find sometimes handy to modify the performance of the built in flash is a hot shoe mounted light diffuser called the Puffer supplied by Gary Fong. The diffuser is light weight and pliable so it can easily be carried in a coat or back pack pocket
I find it works well in situations where it may be desirable to soften the light from the internal flash to prevent burn out, for example when using the internal flash as a trigger for off camera flashes

As an ex K7 owner I can empathise with the workarounds the camera sometimes forces you to deploy! Using fill light and tone adjustments in LR would produce more natural looking results, given a 'clean' sensor. The onboard flash gives a stark artificial look which rarely looks very nice IMHO. That said I like this flower shot I did ages ago with onboard flash, I faffed with the aperture settings to balance the sky. It looks completely unnatural but it looks kind of on-purpose.