Apple Patents Directional Flash Tech For Cameras 145
tekgoblin writes "A patent application has surfaced that shows Apple's attempts at creating a new way for a flash to work on a camera. The way the new flash works is very intriguing: a user can select a dimly lit area of the photo and the camera will try to illuminate just that area with the flash. The way Apple is attempting to accomplish this is similar to the way the autofocus works on the iPhone 4 where you can touch the screen in certain areas to focus on that area. Instead you will be able to light up that area with the flash. This is accomplished by the camera flash passing through a 'redirector' so the flash can be placed other than directly centered when a photo is taken."
Wait a second (Score:4, Funny)
This doesn't make any sense. I'm *sure* I heard Jobs say that he was against this type of technology.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:not to mention prior art (Score:5, Insightful)
Photoshop filters are no replacement for actual light.
Re: (Score:2)
Photoshop filters are no replacement for actual light.
...Yet.
Eventually, a raw 3D picture with color data can be rendered into any picture you may want.
We will be able to take a picture in awful conditions and then recreate a "fake" picture with the 3D model, the true colors and any lighting we want.
I predict this will exist in under ten years.
Re:not to mention prior art (Score:5, Informative)
Eventually, a raw 3D picture with color data can be rendered into any picture you may want.
With no light, there is no colour data.
Re: (Score:2)
With no light, there is no colour data.
You need much less light to know the color of a surface than to make a decent picture.
A badly directed light that gives you an awful picture, does give you color data. Take that data, apply on 3d model, create light sources, render picture.
Re: (Score:2)
You need much less light to know the color of a surface than to make a decent picture.
Not true – taking a picture is by definition determining the colour of the surface –if you can get the colour of the surface exactly, you can get the picture.
Re: (Score:2)
Not true - taking a picture is by definition determining the colour of the surface -if you can get the colour of the surface exactly, you can get the picture.
That's only partially true. In a photo the received surface's color comes from the position and angle of that surface relative to the camera and the lights. If you know the 3D map of the object you can reverse that composition and gather the original information. That original information is what I called the "color data".
For example, with a picture of a sphere and a 3D map you can determine the real color of the sphere (not the color of the light it's currently reflecting towards your objective) and use th
Re:not to mention prior art (Score:4, Insightful)
That's only partially true. In a photo the received surface's color comes from the position and angle of that surface relative to the camera and the lights. If you know the 3D map of the object you can reverse that composition and gather the original information. That original information is what I called the "color data".
Yes, and said colour data cannot be gathered in any way other than collecting light bounced off the surfaces... No light, no colour, it's as simple as that.
Re:not to mention prior art (Score:5, Insightful)
Aside: The person who did the beating down uses an iPhone.
Lesson: don't be a twat and call people unintelligent because of the technology they chose to use, many made an informed choice and just had different requirements to you.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why do all Iphone users insist on telling the world that their platform is okay? Could it be a proxy for homosexual tendencies?
Not really very rhetorical that one – the reason is simple... Because the entire geek world insists on telling iPhone users that their platform is not okay.
No matter how much you spend on computing technology, you will never find the cute boyfriend you seek by displaying Apple devices.
That's okay, I'm happily married.
However, if you think that Apple crap is easy to use, then you're more deluded than the typical meatbag.
I rest my case about twats and telling people apple kit isn't okay ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Technically black is not a colour. I guess you could call it a shade, but that’s as far as I’ll let it go.
Re:not to mention prior art (Score:5, Insightful)
Try to take a picture of a male common damselfly or even a dragonfly in different light conditions. Light is not just reflection, it is also refraction (especially on the more "interesting" photographs). That cannot be modelled realistically based on color data from light falling from the wrong direction. You need knowledge of the actual material to model that and even then it is least likely to be realistic.
There are many examples - the colour of the wings is different depending on the angle at which the light falls on it; same for any other insect; same for rocks, crystals, birds (try taking pictures of a common kingfisher or a sunbird from different angles); open water; in fact nearly anything worth taking a picture I can think of. Even human face if done properly. Try taking a portrait in a standard "halo" shot (works best on pretty blonds :-). Try that with flash and/or additional supporting lights and try taking a "plain" shot and try to get the same effect with photoshop afterwards. You will see what I mean - if you do not have the lighting from the right angle in the first place there is no way you can simulate that "gold shimmer" look from a l'Oreal commercial after that.
In photography light is everything. It is what makes the 10000$ difference between a work of art and POS produced by a point-n-shoot. If the light was not there in the first place and _at_ the right angle the necessary colour data will not be there to record.
I agree. (Score:2, Interesting)
Years ago we had industrial photographers come in and take a picture of the equipment
we were building. Lots of curved stainless steel. They brought in a lot of lights, set
them up high and low all over the place, and our boring-looking equipment started
to look Really Good. Pictures came out great.
Re: (Score:2)
Photography of highly reflective surfaces is one of those situations that really sets the pros apart from the wannabes. (In terms of lighting skill, I'm far closer to the wannabes...)
strobist.blogspot.com is a great reference for photographic lighting techniques, as is the book "Light: Science and Magic".
Re: (Score:2)
Or as was scrawled on the wall of a painting studio I took a class in once, "Even shit can be beautiful if the light hits it right."
Re: (Score:2)
It is what makes the 10000$ difference between a work of art and POS produced by a point-n-shoot. If the light was not there in the first place and _at_ the right angle the necessary colour data will not be there to record.
At least in the 35mm film days, a point and shoot could equal an SLR using the same film stock, so it was about what you do with the equipment rather than what equipment you used; an artist using a point and shoot could take a better picture than some dumb rich guy with a thousand bucks of SLR.
It's more complicated with digital, as SLRs have better sensors (particularly larger pixels, rather than more megapixels), but there are some new compact cameras coming out that redress that balance. Sadly there doesn
Re: (Score:2)
At least in the 35mm film days, a point and shoot could equal an SLR using the same film stock
Not exactly. The primary reason people would pay big bucks for the SLR camera is because of the difference in lens selection and quality. Other than artistic skill, there's no single component that is going to make a bigger difference to the look of the photograph. All other things being roughly equal, a $1,000 lens on an SLR camera is going to be capable of producing a better photograph than a $99 point and shoot, from a technical perspective at least. There are some photographs that you can get with a
Re: (Score:2)
>>>>>Photoshop filters are no replacement for actual light.
>>
>>Eventually, a raw 3D picture with color data can be rendered into any picture you may want.
Eh... maybe in the era of Star Trek (2100s) but for now it's not possible. Even digital zoom doesn't work properly, just blowing-up the existing image rather than interpolating missing data. I agree with the Grandparent Poster that actual light is preferable, just as real actual zoom (using a lens) is better.
Still it's pretty i
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Whooosh
Sounds impossible (Score:5, Informative)
How does this redirector work? the problem with flashes on camera is that they are coming from the point of view of the photo. This creates rather unflattering light.
You can redirect a flash by aiming it, but its still coming from the same point in space as the camera. This isnt ideal or good either.
The best way is to get that flash off the camera... but if you cant, as would be the case with an iphone... it is best to bounce it by redirecting the flash onto a wall to the left, right if you can, or ceiling. Generally up and to the rigth and left work well, as it forces light to bounce off the wall, which in effect makes the wall a large light source.
The problem with the flash being on the phone is that it is still a small light source. Small light sources cast hard shadows. This redirector wont change that, unless it can bounce light off a surface such as a wall. Which i dont see it doing as it has limited mobility being stuck in the back of the iphone. Generally with higher end camera flashes, you can rotate them in 360 degrees left to right and have a large up and down range of movement so you can point it right at the ceiling. you cant do that with an iphone.
We'll see.
Sounds like a cute gimmick for camera novices, but not a new solution to anything other than perhaps interface. Light is light.
Re:Sounds impossible (Score:4, Interesting)
That problem will be solved shortly. We just need a bit more computational power on the cameras and a separable flash.
You point the camera to your target. The camerta creates a 3D map of the room, calculates the perfect surface for reflection and, in the screen, it points that angle to you.
You separate the flash (camera in one hand, flash in the other) point it as the camera showed you, and make the picture.
The camera will have a secondary flash to remove shadows.
All the technology exists at this moment but I don't think a camera sized computer can do 3D maps at a reasonable speed.
Re: (Score:2)
That would be a hell of a powerful camera. The tech exists... I've seen large scale scanning solutions that are amazing but... i doubt apple will ever bundle that into a tiny phone...
The problem is the scan data is often extremely high resolution point data... that has to be triangulated into surfaces and then light would have to be calculated off that etc. The power to do that in real time, makes it unrealistic on a tiny phone at any reasonable cost for mass markets. I think it would be wiser to just learn
Re:Sounds impossible (Score:4, Informative)
You're right....not phone size yet.
http://www.advancedscientificconcepts.com/ [advancedsc...ncepts.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The lidar stuff is amazing.. It picks up positional and color data in point clouds if i'm not mistaken... I've seen some amazing things used for special fx shots etc... large scans of out door buildings from helicopters etc... amazing stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
Are there combination cameras then? I've only seen the data, not the cameras... Basically the point clouds had vertex colors assigned to them which when assembled they are in a sense pixel data.. cause the resolution is so high.
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.pointools.com/ptedit_intro.php [pointools.com]
This is the stuff I've seen... Pretty amazing data. I believe the parent company makes the hardware also.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
MEMS mirrors are tiny, cheap to make now that we know how to make them, and are easily able to do this kind of application.
I'm also not sure if a camera sized computer can do 3D maps at a reasonable speed yet - but a hardware chip which has instructions purely to implement that sort of al
Re: (Score:2)
So, unless Apple is planning to start a new trend of huge cameras, it's unlikely that this technology will really make much of a difference. As the angles and distances involved are just not enough to make much of a
Re: (Score:2)
If you read the parent thread, you'll realize they're talking about bouncing the flash.. which negates your argument.
Now, how the hell they'll be able to get a bright enough flash (even if it's targeted to the subject dark areas) for bouncing, generated from a smartphone casing... I have no idea. That truly would be future-tech.
Re: (Score:2)
The computing power exists and is proven to work. The computer is known as "human brain".
Someone who understands photographic light (read Strobist's Lighting 101 as a good way to start understanding it) and doing stuff like what you described above becomes second nature.
Note: Regardless of computing method, non-white ceilings/walls greatly decrease the solution space of the problem. :(
Re: (Score:2)
I think we can all agree that there would be a certain utility to having a camera that can do the photographer's job, which is to say, calculating good angles and lighting. Further, I think most of us would agree that this will become feasible eventually. This frees up the photographer to be an artist, although it also sharply decreases the amount of available work by eliminating the easy stuff. That relegates the professional photographer to the trickiest stuff, but at least it's also most interesting. Als
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Clearly you underestimate the power of Jobs at bending light and controlling photons. All you need is a singularity in the right place in order to direct the light where you want it to be.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That is very true.
And they shouldnt be allowed to do that. Bouncing and aiming light has been apart of artistic illumination before cameras ever existed.
Re: (Score:2)
dude this patent isn't for the iphone 4.. they could build in a flash on the rim of the phone for bouncy in future phones. Conveniently solves the antenna problem too! lol?
You're thinking of the wrong problem (Score:2)
Actually, that seems to me like the perfect way to aim the flash at just someone's eyes :p
Re: (Score:2)
This is only a marginal improvement (and may in many situations prove to be a non-improvement making those who understand photographic lighting even sicker).
The unfortunate fact is, we'll never see bounce flash coming from a cameraphone. There simply is not any way to get the energy/power requirements for bounce flash crammed into a cell phone. The patent above is, if anything, going in the exact opposite direction from bounce flash.
Simply a matter of programming (Score:2)
The best way is to get that flash off the camera... but if you cant, as would be the case with an iphone... it is best to bounce it by redirecting the flash onto a wall to the left, right if you can, or ceiling. Generally up and to the rigth and left work well, as it forces light to bounce off the wall, which in effect makes the wall a large light source.
Simple - you bump two iPhones in "flash buddy mode" - from that point use the accelerometers to determine their relative positions, and have the first sign
Re: (Score:2)
sounds fragile.
You mean a small LCD array that pops out and away from the back of the phone and angles? Its possible sure... but still limited in mobility and it would be the first thing to break on the iphone
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I think he means a small LCD a millimeter or so in front of the flash, ie. completely inside the iPhone, no moving parts needed.
I wonder if he's patented the opposite - select parts of the image where you don't want flash, or want less flash - eg. macro photography. The LCD could have a 16-level greyscale for fine control, I wonder if he's patented that as well. Gee, this thinking-up-patentable-ideas thing is really easy.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Considering the amount of heat given off by a flash [1], I wonder if that's feasible. Also, can an LCD be made dark enough for this?
1: I've tried using my hand to partially cover the flash for close photography. Even a single flash is painfully hot.
Re: (Score:2)
Phones only have LED flash. Those produce much less heat.
Re: (Score:2)
It’s basically a low-resolution B&W (or perhaps grayscale) LCD projector. Hardly revolutionary.
Re: (Score:2)
I said it was simple and obvious. I never said it was stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
Or just a bunch of LED flash generators pointing in slightly different directions.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm guessing this only starts to get interesting in the 256-area range. However, I'm not sure that can be done cost-effectively.
If they've come up with a wa
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
>>>The best way is to get that flash off the camera
You're right. I rarely use the flash on my camera, because I prefer to turn-on all the lights in a room and get things as bright as possible. It makes a better picture and a more realistic effect, versus the "bright face" appearance of flash lighting.
Re: (Score:2)
You know thats actually a brilliant idea...
The logistics of it maybe difficult but that feature would be very cool.
I'll need to rethink my lighting. (Score:5, Informative)
I'm a professional photographer and I've been using flash zoom, feathering etc for years to achieve this effect. Guess I won't be allowed to do that anymore without asking Apple for permission first?
http://www.meejahor.com/2008/06/06/feathering-two-lights-for-the-price-of-one/ [meejahor.com]
http://www.meejahor.com/2008/09/29/feathering-its-like-off-camera-lighting-but-faster/ [meejahor.com]
(Just kidding. I know it's a patent for a specific method, not the technique.)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My guess is that Apple's algorithm is more likely to target fixate on the foreground subject, creating the exact opposite effect.
Re: (Score:2)
don't worry, the technique patent will come after this one is granted...
waiting 30s to press submit
because I type too fast
As long as... (Score:4, Funny)
We don't have to hold it in a certain way to make it work properly.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You do, if your finger hits this one spot, with a circular piece of glass on it, then the camera doesn't pick up any light –you just totally lose all reception!
Call me crazy (Score:5, Insightful)
The only time I bother taking a picture with my phone's camera as opposed to a normal camera is if it's something happening spontaneous and I want to take a shot immediately.
If I'm going to take the time to make adjustments and setup lighting I'm not shooting with my cell phone.
That said, if the camera can auto-select dark spots and light them without over-lighting other areas or otherwise screwing up the shot, I could certainly see that as a good thing.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sounds like it's more about getting better* spontaneous shots out of a small, portable device, than trying to replace a proper camera+lighting.
I don't carry a dedicated camera, unless I'm planning on doing some photography. I've always got my phone, though. Any improvement is welcome.
*"Better", as in, an improvement over what similar devices could do before, not "better" as in that which can be accomplished by less-convenient means.
Re: (Score:2)
"Auto" sounds likely, given Apple's design style. They seemingly added the HDR feature so that iPhone users wouldn't need* to properly set the metering their pictures, for instance.
*Of course you get better results if you do set a metering "target" manually, but HDR's certainly reduced the number of photos that are ruined if you don't bother.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on what you're trying to accomplish with the picture. Many people have slammed Polaroid instant pictures. They're generally washed out, the center flash makes faces look ghostlike, the whites are unbalanced (especially after drinking). But there are galleries of Polaroid art out there. The photographers worked within the medium to create interesting images that could not be taken with an SLR without manipulation. Sure, the iPhone is nowhere near as versatile as a traditional *SLR or even a dedicat
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with you, and I’ll take it a step further. The appropriate way to do this is with software, not with hardware.
Design the phone to take two pictures only milliseconds apart, one with the full effect of the flash and one with pretty much no flash. Then you can snap those spontaneous shots with no prep work and after-the-fact you can “direct” the flash anywhere you want by selectively feathering the photos together.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Anyone with a brain would know the best camera is the one you have with you -- I welcome such options as touch-directed spot focus, raw mode, etc. that are already on my phone's camera, because sometimes (having not anticipated taking any photos) I don't have any of my "real" cameras along, and I like to be able to take the best shot possible with the gear I have on me -- if it still turns out crap, I can always delete it later...
So I for one welcome our flash-steering overlords -- here's hoping Nokia will
Re: (Score:2)
And while you're trying to set all those settings - whoops there went your once in a lifetime shot.
Sorry, a P&S that I can whip out and just press the button without fucking with anything is going to be far, FAR superior to an iPhone where you need to wait for the camera software to load.
Re: (Score:2)
You're giving iPhone users enough credit to have brains.
Anyone with a brain wouldn't be using an adjustable flash on a crappy low f-stop lens like that, nor such a low resolution.
What's so bad about having a low f-stop lens? I like them for providing a narrow depth of field and to be able to shoot in low light conditions.
Re: (Score:2)
You want higher f-stops for low light conditions, coupled with longer exposures.
High-light, lowest f-stop, fastest shutter speed.
And that tiny lens (which gives such a low f-stop) is horrible for low-light conditions.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I think he's referencing the article (which is referencing the patent application) which only mentions a camera and only has diagrams of a camera (no phone). So it's clear from the quoted description and the diagrams that they think their invention is novel enough even among standalone cameras. In any case, even if they do use this technology for their own phone, there is no reason they wouldn't license this technology to camera manufacturers. Take one of the patents they have on h.264, they've licensed
Re: (Score:2)
I think you exaggerate. Even my old Kodak P&S (CX7430) which I've passed to my mother years ago beats the crap out of every current phone camera picture quality wise. And that one was made in 2004.
How (Score:2)
How do you redirect light with a solid state system ?
Will this use the same tech the new breed of laser projectors will use?
Maybe you don't (Score:2)
Maybe you block off parts of it with, eg. a low-res LCD - no moving parts!
Re: (Score:2)
An LCD most certainly does have moving parts. It's not just a change of phase or electron state. OLED, OTOH...
A Flash-spotlight? (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, I have to say, it is a novel idea as far as I can tell. I could probably do one better by combining the power of a projector lamp and a DLP mirror system to paint a rather precise lighting system for the purposes of portrait photography. Light can be manipulated with very precise detail, coloring and intensity over the whole scene, not just one point. (Now, someone go patent this idea...) Using this technology, you could photoshop an image before you take it.
As someone pointed out, it is not so easy or as good when photos are edited after the fact than before. The reason why, I will assert, is that there is an unlimited range of variables of light while there is a far more limited range of variables of pixel data. The act of capturing an image on a CCD is already lossy compression of information. By setting up the image before-hand, you are increasing your ability to edit a final product in a more pleasing way.
I would be interested to know how Apple intends to integrate this into an iProduct. iPhone/iPad wouldn't be particularly good at this type of photography I don't think. To accomplish this, a complex focusing system would have to be implemented and while I have heard of liquid lenses (here on slashdot) before, I can't help but believe that the throw distance of such projection technology would be rather short.
Still, all in all, this is a neat idea. And it's not quite a software patent, so I'm okay with it.
Will never work... (Score:2, Insightful)
Yet another way to really fuck up your photos. If you know anything about professional photography, you immediately know this is a failed "solution". In many cases when you light a scene for photography, it's the DIRECTION that the light comes from that is important together with the amount of light. That's why you rarely see camera-mounted flash used in the studio, strobes (flashes) are positioned away from the camera so as to light the scene in a certain way from one or more directions. With the proposed
Re:Will never work... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Will never work... (Score:4, Informative)
If you know anything about professional photography, you immediately know this is a failed "solution". In many cases when you light a scene for photography, it's the DIRECTION that the light comes from that is important together with the amount of light. That's why you rarely see camera-mounted flash used in the studio,
Well, if you knew anything about professional photography, you'd know that on-camera flash definitely has a useful place. That's why you often see a ring-flash (the light actually surrounds the lens, so it comes from directly front-on) employed for fashion, macro and scientific photography. Flash coming from the direction of the lens is actually very useful as a fill-light, when used in moderation.
With the proposed "invention", the direction light comes from will always be the same, close to the lens. It doesn't matter that it's only lighting a part of the scene.
Actually, it would matter. One of the biggest problem with on-camera flash is that it lights the entire scene the same way, leading to highly over-exposed and under-exposed areas. If you can control where that light goes, then you will get a much better result than an on-camera flash that just blasts the scene indiscriminately.
After all, you don't always have access to off-camera lighting, particularly with a compact unit. Of course it's not going to be the same a a set of studio lights (which people don;t carry around with their phones). But it's a step up from non-controllable on-camera flash.
Change of opinion? (Score:4, Funny)
I thought Apple hated Flash, stating poor performance and what not.
2 photos (Score:2)
Isn't one solution just to take two photos a split second apart (one pre-flash and one with flash), then blend the two images together, using the region of the 'flash' photo that the user selected as the 'flash region'. If its not doing that, then where do I make a patent application? :)
iFlash (Score:2, Funny)
directing light, hmm? (Score:2)
sounds like Microsoft sold another license for their 'wedge' lens technology.
iPhone smart enough to augment photos (Score:2)
The top scored comments do not consider that the iPhone has enough power and resources to augment photos.
You could take your photo and then wave the camera around in the air or even walk over to the side or closer to your subject, and the phone could be selectively lighting the scene while adding these frames onto the image. It can use the accelerometer with computer vision techniques to understand where the camera is moving. It can learn what the 3D shape of the subject is and computer 3D masking.
What I th
Think Brownie Camera (Score:2)
The patent looks interesting, but also looks like something that is just a computer controlled version of a technique that has been around for a long time. I have some old potato masher shaped, flash-bulb, strobes. A few of them have the reflector dish that is just slightly off center and a little bit movable. Some call that dents and age, but it looks a lot like Apple's patent. Move the reflector just slightly, and you can highlight a dark area and remove some light from the bright parts. Easy enough and,
Not a granted patent! Link to original article,app (Score:2)
Oh, for goodness sake, when is timothy going to a) learn to link to the original source and not some third-rate blog and b) learn to distinguish between a patent application and a granted patent?
Link to original source: Apple Working on the Next Wave of Digital Camera Technologies [patentlyapple.com]
Link to U.S. Patent Application 20100238344 [uspto.gov]
Already been done? (Score:2)
Citroen DS (Score:2)
Citroen DS lights work this way. In order to get a bit more visibility out of the puny late 1960s headlamps the reflector behind the lamp would pivot to point in the direction you pointed the steering wheel.
DS 21M phares tournant [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
well its stuck on the back of the phone. You cant aim the flash without aiming the stupid iphone camera in the direction of the flash:)
Its not an SLR with a real flash... its a solid phone you hold in one direction with the lense and flash on the same plane no matter how you angle the damn thing.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The difference to a Canon EOS 50D being that the flash on the Canon is stuck to the top?
I'm not that well versed in photography as to understand how much of an impact this can have, hence my original post. ;)
Re:What's wrong with... (Score:5, Informative)
Well it depends on which flash you're talking about.
If you're talking about the flash that comes built in on a Canon EOS Slr... The one that "pops up"... That is as worthless an Iphone flash, as it can not be aimed.
But if you're talking about a Canon 550EX Flash, which is an expensive professional grade small flash unit that mounts into the "Hot shoe" on top of the Canon EOS SLR... Those flashes can be rotated in just about every direction, including aiming it behind you... Those types of flashes are much more versatile than the "pop up" flash that comes built into the camera.
The reason is based on the physics of light.
If you've ever seen a studio photography setup, you will notice that none of the lights are attached to the camera. (Although sometimes there will be a ring flash attached to the camera.. this is a special effect I'll ignore to keep this simple)
I'm sure you've seen studio lights where theres a light thats aimed into an umbrella. This is a classic studio photography cliche that you probably have seen once in your life.
The reason you do that, is because the flash unit itself is a small light source. Small light sources cast hard shadows. If you look at most fashion photography, you will rarely if ever see a hard shadow, because hard shadows are unflattering. Hard shadows show all of the imperfections in a persons skin, and often occlude harshly areas of your subject.
So by aiming the flash into an umbrella... you are basically turning a small light source into a large light source. The reason this works is because light photons bounce from surface to surface and decrease at an exponential rate.
Firing a bright small flash into a large white surface, such as an umbrella... illuminates the umbrella and then that umbrealla becomes a source of light that casts SOFT shadows. Soft shadows, soften imperfections in skin, can fill and blend with existing light very well, and generally looks better.
So small light source = hard shadows and large light source = soft shadows. There are other fancier devices other than umbrellas. There are things called soft boxes, where instead of bouncing light off the umbrealla, you are actually shooting the light through a large transparent white surface that is encased to keep light from escaping in directions you do not want. So the lgiht only transmits out that transparent white surface... thus enlarging teh light and creating a more directional soft shadow effect. This is is the tool of choice of every studio photographer. Umbrellas work well, but soft boxes are better because they contain light and only emit it out the front. An umbrella will leak light all over your room, but it will soften the light.
ANYWAYS. I'm getting too much into this ;)
But basically an after market flash such as a Canon 550EX allows you to position the flash so that you can aim it at large surfaces around your subject, while still being attached to your camera. A pop up flash only fires in one direction... straight ahead.
An interesting thing to try if you do not own a real flash... is to simply take some kind of card, perferably white, or even better, take a piece of cardboard and wrap it in tin foil.... Now hold that card just under that pop up flash on the camera... and angle it so that it directs the light towards the ceiling. Now take a picture. You will be amazed at how more appealing it is, compared to just taking a photo with the pop up flash aimed directly at your subject. The reason is, by aiming the flash at the ceiling, you're using the ceiling as a light source, and not your flash. You've turned a small light source, into a large one, by bouncing that light off the ceiling which then bounces around the room... and eliminates the hard shadow of the pop up flash.
Re: (Score:2)
Just an idea.
Re: (Score:2)
Well you could have one slide up from the top edge of the phone and them have it rotate freely. It would probably be very fragile and too weak to illuminate a room well enough to make a big difference. Its tricky because the iphone itself is such a power hungry device... too many flashes could seriously hurt your phone battery time.
Re: (Score:2)
No photographer, just trying to re-work Apple's idea. It'd probably be no use for twilight-lit rooms as camera flashes are quite underpowered. Oh well, It's a phon
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty much. Which ever way he was orienting it has to do with how the photographer decided to capture his exposure.
Some people think attaching various things to their flashes directly like that, make a difference. It only helps if you're angling light away from direct line of sight from the lens viewpoint. There are various plastic things sold on the market that dont do much, but claim to do amazing things. Generally it comes down to small light sources on the camera axis do not generate pleasing images un
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The nice thing about the little popup flashes in most SLRs these days is that they can trigger a remote flash wirelessly.
(A modern take on the classic "optical slave" where the camera can actually control the remote flash's light output. Nikon calls this CLS, Canon calles it wireless E-TTL I think, Pentax calls it wireless P-TTL.)
Most SLRs can be put in a mode where the onboard flash is reduced so much in output that it doesn't contribute significantly to exposure at all. (It will still, however, contribu
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Everything you said is true and a good addition to what I wrote.
Although the optical slave comment... While its true that an built in flash can trigger remote flashes via optical response, the Nikon CLS and Canon ETTL require a Nikon SB800 or a Canon 580EX II to control the remote flashes if you're talking CLS and ETTL. The reason is because ETTL (I'm more experienced with as I shoot canon so I'll talk about ETTL).. The reason is ETTL transmit exposure settings via an infrared transmitter in front of the 58
Re: (Score:2)
the Nikon CLS and Canon ETTL require a Nikon SB800 or a Canon 580EX II to control the remote flashes if you're talking CLS and ETTL.
Not so with Nikon. The pop-up flash in the D300, at least, will act as commander for external CLS flashguns. I use mine to control an SB900 off camera.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah. I'm all canon, so I dont have much experience with Nikon, although I have used a a D300, my step mother owns one.
So the Nikon uses the flash to communicate? There is no infrared signal? Do the SB800/900s use infrared? Or is it all just flash to communicate?
Re: (Score:2)
Really? Hmm... [pocketwizard.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Oh stop. You would be amazed at how many people do not know this. Ask the average person how photons work and they wont know. Hell most wont even know what a photon is.
Even those that do, may not realize how to control light and exposure through manipulating light... so its not as common knowledge as you suggest with your snark attack ;)