From Newsgroup: uk.tech.digital-tv

I am planning to take some photos using external flash in a studio
setting using a digital SLR. In the old days, I recall there was a
single sync speed (usually 1/60 or 1/125 second) and if the flash
dominated the illumination the shutter speed would not affect the
exposure. I see that my Nikon D5100 has a (maximum) sync speed of
1/200 sec. The organiser recommends this should be the setting. Am I
right that whether 1/125 or 1/200 is used should make no difference as
we are looking at about half a stop for the ambient light only? Is
there any benefit in using the slower speed as a margin of safety?
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.tech.digital-tv

I'm adding alt.photography in case better help than I can give is
available from there ...

On 2026-05-04 16:20, Scott wrote:

I am planning to take some photos using external flash in a studio
setting using a digital SLR.

By 'external flash' I presume you mean that the flash is mounted other
than on the camera, but nevertheless is synced to the camera.

In the old days, I recall there was a
single sync speed (usually 1/60 or 1/125 second) and if the flash
dominated the illumination the shutter speed would not affect the
exposure.

As you suggest, for a given aperture, if the flash itself is the main
source of lighting and as long as the shutter stays open for the
duration of it, then the duration of the flash determines the exposure.
The purpose of the recommended shutter setting is to ensure that the
shutter and flash are synchronised so that the former will be open for
the entirety of the latter's duration.

I see that my Nikon D5100 has a (maximum) sync speed of
1/200 sec. The organiser recommends this should be the setting. Am I
right that whether 1/125 or 1/200 is used should make no difference as
we are looking at about half a stop for the ambient light only? Is
there any benefit in using the slower speed as a margin of safety?

I have a Nikon D5600, which is pretty good, but I've not done much flash
work with it [*], so can only speak generally.

It probably depends on what you're photographing and/or what effect
you're trying to achieve. Personally I prefer photos that use as much
ambient light and as little flash light as possible, because IMO they
tend to look more natural - photos where the flash dominates have a
tendency to look rather like a rabbit caught in the headlights.
However, sometimes that won't work, for example in many situations you
could not freeze movement like that. Why don't you try some
experiments, either in advance if that is possible, or at least try a
range of the possible settings at the start of the session and see what
works best for the subject matter, and then stick with that for the rest
of the shoot? One of the biggest advantages of digital photography is
being able to see the results straight away, so my advice is to use that advantage to decide what works best and follow that early lead. To
which end, my Nikon has an associated app called SnapBridge on my
tablet, via which I can control the camera, and this also provides a convenient way of examining the results in some detail soon afterwards
- it takes only a second or two for the photo to be transferred to the
tablet where you can see it on a bigger screen and zoom and pan about to
check things out.

* I've only used it with a ring flash around the lens to photograph the
pages of an antique book of bird paintings before selling it, which
worked tolerably well though the difference between lighting levels and
the centre and edges of the pages is rather more noticeable than I would
have liked.
--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website: www.macfh.co.uk

--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.tech.digital-tv

On Mon 04/05/2026 17:24, Java Jive wrote:

I'm adding alt.photography in case better help than I can give is
available from there ...

On 2026-05-04 16:20, Scott wrote:

I am planning to take some photos using external flash in a studio
setting using a digital SLR.

By 'external flash' I presume you mean that the flash is mounted other
than on the camera, but nevertheless is synced to the camera.

In the old days, I recall there was a
single sync speed (usually 1/60 or 1/125 second) and if the flash
dominated the illumination the shutter speed would not affect the
exposure.

As you suggest, for a given aperture, if the flash itself is the main
source of lighting and as long as the shutter stays open for the
duration of it, then the duration of the flash determines the exposure.
The purpose of the recommended shutter setting is to ensure that the
shutter and flash are synchronised so that the former will be open for
the entirety of the latter's duration.

I see that my Nikon D5100 has a (maximum) sync speed of
1/200 sec. The organiser recommends this should be the setting. Am I
right that whether 1/125 or 1/200 is used should make no difference as
we are looking at about half a stop for the ambient light only? Is
there any benefit in using the slower speed as a margin of safety?

I have a Nikon D5600, which is pretty good, but I've not done much flash work with it [*], so can only speak generally.

It probably depends on what you're photographing and/or what effect
you're trying to achieve.-a Personally I prefer photos that use as much ambient light and as little flash light as possible, because IMO they
tend to look more natural-a --a photos where the flash dominates have a tendency to look rather like a rabbit caught in the headlights. However, sometimes that won't work, for example in many situations you could not freeze movement like that.-a Why don't you try some experiments, either
in advance if that is possible, or at least try a range of the possible settings at the start of the session and see what works best for the
subject matter, and then stick with that for the rest of the shoot?-a One
of the biggest advantages of digital photography is being able to see
the results straight away, so my advice is to use that advantage to
decide what works best and follow that early lead.-a To which end, my
Nikon has an associated app called SnapBridge on my tablet, via which I
can control the camera, and this also provides a convenient way of
examining the results in some detail soon afterwards --a it takes only a second or two for the photo to be transferred to the tablet where you
can see it on a bigger screen and zoom and pan about to check things out.

*-a I've only used it with a ring flash around the lens to photograph the pages of an antique book of bird paintings before selling it, which
worked tolerably well though the difference between lighting levels and
the centre and edges of the pages is rather more noticeable than I would have liked.

Totally agree.
The limitation in the olden days was how long it took for the first
(then horizontal) blind of the shutter to get to complete its travel
before the second blind chased after it. On cameras with cloth blinds
this was most often 1/30th and later 1/60th. At shutter speeds higher
than that limitation the second blind started off before the first blind
had completed its journey and, in effect, you got a vertical slot
crossing the film. The point at which the flash fired would be lit but
much of the rest of it would be near darkness.
Then along came (Olympus OM series?) vertical metal bladed shutters that
could open in 1/125th second and until recently that was the limit.
Now we have mirrorless dSLRs so the sync speed limitation is not
enforced by mechanics but rather by electronics where the time between triggering the flash and the flash actually firing is the limiting factor.

In practice if you set the shutter in the studio to 1/60th and then
adjust exposure based in that time you won't go far wrong.

Oh and as Charles mentioned, Snapbridge is a free download and worth
having, not least that you can run Snapbridge on your phone with
location active and when you take a picture the lat/long of your
location is also written into the EXIF file so you know exactly where
you were when you took the picture.
(If you want to see what EXIF is about, download the free picture viewer Faststone (correct spelling), open a picture with it and press letter I.
You will get as table showing all of the camera settings at the time the picture was taken the bottom line of which is GPS location.)

One last tip, applicable in any environment but admittedly more likely outdoors.
I once saw a video by a pro photographer and he gave a useful tip.
Always set your camera to under expose by 1/2 or 2/3 (or even 1.0) stop.
If you over expose you loose detail, but if you under expose the detail
is still there and you can recover it in software. I've stuck with that
and very successfully ever since.

--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.tech.digital-tv

On 05/05/2026 07:35, Woody wrote:

I once saw a video by a pro photographer and he gave a useful tip.
Always set your camera to under expose by 1/2 or 2/3 (or even 1.0) stop.
If you over expose you loose detail, but if you under expose the detail
is still there and you can recover it in software. I've stuck with that
and very successfully ever since.

Yes, I was advised - by an independent photographic shop where I used to
get all my processing done and where I bought B&W darkroom chemicals -
that it is best to underexpose slide film (and nowadays, digital) by
maybe 1/3 stop, to avoid blowing out highlights.

At least some digital cameras can be set to display "zebra stripes" in
the viewfinder to alert you to areas where one or more colours have
maxed-out, so you can turn down the exposure slightly.

Having said that, it is amazing what film scanners can do to rescue overexposed film. I once took a lot of night-time photos of illuminated buildings etc when I was at university. I was shooting on Ektachrome daylight-balanced slide film so I needed a blue filter to adapt this to
mainly tungsten lighting on buildings and in shop windows. I also wanted
to use long exposures to allow me to slide a black card in front of the
lens (and stop counting exposure time) whenever a car came along, to
avoid headlight trails. I couldn't get a meter reading of just the
buildings, without the predominantly dark image biassing the exposure,
so I was guessing *very* wildly at the correct exposure and a few of
them ended up overexposed.

When I came to scan the best of them, 30 years later, I found that my
trusty Minolta film scanner, with suitable manual correction from
VueScan (freeware) produced stunning results, recovering or
manufacturing highlight detail that I couldn't see with the naked eye.


I wonder if Snapbridge will work with my camera. I'll have to download
it and see...
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.tech.digital-tv

On 2026-05-05 09:41, NY wrote:

I wonder if Snapbridge will work with my camera. I'll have to download
it and see...

IIRC, SnapBridge is a Nikon app specifically for their cameras.
However, there are probably equivalent apps for other makes of camera,
and possibly even general apps that can work with many different makes,
though in the latter case you'd need some sort of standard interface
like an API, that was supported by all the major makes of camera, for
such apps to be able to control them all. I've not heard of such a
thing, but then I haven't looked either. Perhaps others may be able to comment more fully on these latter points.
--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website: www.macfh.co.uk

--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.tech.digital-tv

On 05/05/2026 20:37, Java Jive wrote:

On 2026-05-05 09:41, NY wrote:

I wonder if Snapbridge will work with my camera. I'll have to download
it and see...

IIRC, SnapBridge is a Nikon app specifically for their cameras. However, there are probably equivalent apps for other makes of camera, and
possibly even general apps that can work with many different makes,
though in the latter case you'd need some sort of standard interface
like an API, that was supported by all the major makes of camera, for
such apps to be able to control them all.-a I've not heard of such a
thing, but then I haven't looked either.-a Perhaps others may be able to comment more fully on these latter points.

Yes, my DSLR is a Nikon D90. Don't know whether that is too old to work
with Snapbridge. I presume it communicates with a controlling phone or
PC by USB cable.
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.tech.digital-tv

On 06/05/2026 14:37, NY wrote:

On 05/05/2026 20:37, Java Jive wrote:

On 2026-05-05 09:41, NY wrote:

I wonder if Snapbridge will work with my camera. I'll have to
download it and see...

IIRC, SnapBridge is a Nikon app specifically for their cameras.
However, there are probably equivalent apps for other makes of camera,
and possibly even general apps that can work with many different
makes, though in the latter case you'd need some sort of standard
interface like an API, that was supported by all the major makes of
camera, for such apps to be able to control them all.-a I've not heard
of such a thing, but then I haven't looked either.-a Perhaps others may
be able to comment more fully on these latter points.

Yes, my DSLR is a Nikon D90. Don't know whether that is too old to work
with Snapbridge. I presume it communicates with a controlling phone or
PC by USB cable.

Ah, no, it uses Bluetooth :-( Damn. The D90 will be *far* too old to
have Bluetooth or wifi capability. They really should have made the
software support USB as well, for greater backward compatibility.
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.tech.digital-tv

On 05/05/2026 07:35, Woody wrote:

One last tip, applicable in any environment but admittedly more likely outdoors.
I once saw a video by a pro photographer and he gave a useful tip.
Always set your camera to under expose by 1/2 or 2/3 (or even 1.0) stop.
If you over expose you loose detail, but if you under expose the detail
is still there and you can recover it in software. I've stuck with that
and very successfully ever since.

I have a Nikon D5600 and what it can pull out of shadows is staggering.
Not 1/3 of a stop, several stops down, you can get a more than adequte
image from a night scene exposed for streetlighting but containing shadows.

I bought it second hand as my first DSLR after learning on film decades
ago and to say my mind was blown...
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.tech.digital-tv

On 04/05/2026 17:24, Java Jive wrote:

To which end, my
Nikon has an associated app called SnapBridge on my tablet, via which I
can control the camera, and this also provides a convenient way of
examining the results in some detail soon afterwards

My Panasonic Lumix point-and-shoot* has an equivalent app called,
somewhat practiacally, "Image App". And very useful it is too.


*Point-and-shoot seems like a not-quite-adequate descriptor of the capabilities of many pocket cameras these days. The tech they contain is amazing.
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.tech.digital-tv

On Thu, 7 May 2026 13:43:28 +0100
David Paste <pastedavid@gmail.com> wrote:

On 04/05/2026 17:24, Java Jive wrote:

To which end, my
Nikon has an associated app called SnapBridge on my tablet, via
which I can control the camera, and this also provides a convenient
way of examining the results in some detail soon afterwards

My Panasonic Lumix point-and-shoot* has an equivalent app called,
somewhat practiacally, "Image App". And very useful it is too.

*Point-and-shoot seems like a not-quite-adequate descriptor of the capabilities of many pocket cameras these days. The tech they contain
is amazing.

Absolutely. Having grown up on a Pentax, then progressing to an Olympus
OM-2 for my film years, then having a gap, and eventually buying a Canon Compact was an eye-opener. Early on, I saw a 'plane in the far visible distance, and took a shot, and the image showed enough detail to
identify it as the aircraft, Sally B, that played the part of The
Memphis Belle. No way could I have done that with my Olympus,
especially considering the difference in weight.
I also bought a DSLR, but I find it clunky and rarely use it.
--
Davey.

--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.tech.digital-tv

On 07/05/2026 13:43, David Paste wrote:

*Point-and-shoot seems like a not-quite-adequate descriptor of the capabilities of many pocket cameras these days. The tech they contain is amazing.

I agree. The colour rendition, sharpness and exposure accuracy of the
camera in my Samsung phone is amazing. Shame it's let down by horrendous
JPEG compression artefacts and noise because it's such a small sensor.

Fine for most things - as long as you don't need a long lens.

My Nikon D90 still wins for image quality, but somehow the photos don't
seem quite as sharp (using like-for-like resolution) as the Samsung, and
its auto-white balance can lead to rather bland colours: I tend to set
it on one of the presets (sunny, cloudy, shade on a sunny day, various fluorescents, tungsten) which is what I *should* do, rather than being
lazy ;-)

The 18-200 lens on the D90 has a nasty flaw: you can turn the focussing
ring slightly beyond infinity so distant objects go out of focus. It's
only a problem in very low light when auto focus doesn't work and it's
too dark to see to focus manually. I discovered it when I was taking
photos of the Northern Lights and found that my images were out of focus
(*). I just turned off AF and turned the focus ring to infinity, but my
lens was focussing "beyond that" ;-) I ended up zooming in, manually
focussing on a light on a house several hundred yards away, and then
zooming back out again. Difficult to judge focus on a small screen on
the back of the camera when I need glasses to see anything closer than
about 10 feet (!) and I didn't want to spoil my night vision by going
indoors for them.


(*) It was focus rather than earth movement over a long exposure because
I could see that even trees and buildings on the horizon weren't pin
sharp despite a tripod and a wireless "cable release".
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.tech.digital-tv

On 04/05/2026 16:20, Scott wrote:

I am planning to take some photos using external flash in a studio
setting using a digital SLR. In the old days, I recall there was a
single sync speed (usually 1/60 or 1/125 second) and if the flash
dominated the illumination the shutter speed would not affect the
exposure. I see that my Nikon D5100 has a (maximum) sync speed of
1/200 sec. The organiser recommends this should be the setting. Am I
right that whether 1/125 or 1/200 is used should make no difference as
we are looking at about half a stop for the ambient light only? Is
there any benefit in using the slower speed as a margin of safety?

If your Nikon has a recommended sync speed, then it is reasonable to
assume that it will work properly at that speed. Whilst it shouldn't
make much difference using a slower shutter speed, a faster shutter
speed will reduce the risk of any camera shake affecting the sharpness
of the photograph.

I have a Panasonic Lumix which I use most of the time because it is
small enough to carry in a pocket. I find that provided I can rest it
against something or on something to hold it steady, the photos I take
with "force flash off" look a nicer contrast than ones using the flash.

My other camera is a pretty old Pentax DSLR, and it takes its best
pictures with a "fill-in flash" rather than relying on mainly flash illumination. For that I set the shutter speed to 1/125 (the highest
that has the shutter fully open at the time the flash fires) and let the camera work out the appropriate aperture for the picture. It seems to
work well in pictures with a big range of contrast when seen with my eyes.

--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.tech.digital-tv

On Thu, 7 May 2026 23:12:14 +0100, Indy Jess John <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:

On 04/05/2026 16:20, Scott wrote:

I am planning to take some photos using external flash in a studio
setting using a digital SLR. In the old days, I recall there was a
single sync speed (usually 1/60 or 1/125 second) and if the flash
dominated the illumination the shutter speed would not affect the
exposure. I see that my Nikon D5100 has a (maximum) sync speed of
1/200 sec. The organiser recommends this should be the setting. Am I
right that whether 1/125 or 1/200 is used should make no difference as
we are looking at about half a stop for the ambient light only? Is
there any benefit in using the slower speed as a margin of safety?

If your Nikon has a recommended sync speed, then it is reasonable to
assume that it will work properly at that speed. Whilst it shouldn't
make much difference using a slower shutter speed, a faster shutter
speed will reduce the risk of any camera shake affecting the sharpness
of the photograph.

The 1/200 sec recommendation came from the studio manager. The
instruction booklet (200 pages long) suggests 1/200 'or slower'. I was wondering whether using a slower speed such as 1/125 would increase
the proportion of ambient light and benefit the photo. However, I take
your point about camera shake. When I learned with film, I understood
that ambient light could be disregarded in a studio setting. I suspect
the ambient light will be immaterial though?

I have a Panasonic Lumix which I use most of the time because it is
small enough to carry in a pocket. I find that provided I can rest it >against something or on something to hold it steady, the photos I take
with "force flash off" look a nicer contrast than ones using the flash.

My other camera is a pretty old Pentax DSLR, and it takes its best
pictures with a "fill-in flash" rather than relying on mainly flash >illumination. For that I set the shutter speed to 1/125 (the highest
that has the shutter fully open at the time the flash fires) and let the >camera work out the appropriate aperture for the picture. It seems to
work well in pictures with a big range of contrast when seen with my eyes.

Thanks to everyone. I guess the best approach is to use the
opportunity to experiment.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.tech.digital-tv

On 08/05/2026 09:26, Scott wrote:

On Thu, 7 May 2026 23:12:14 +0100, Indy Jess John <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:

On 04/05/2026 16:20, Scott wrote:

I am planning to take some photos using external flash in a studio
setting using a digital SLR. In the old days, I recall there was a
single sync speed (usually 1/60 or 1/125 second) and if the flash
dominated the illumination the shutter speed would not affect the
exposure. I see that my Nikon D5100 has a (maximum) sync speed of
1/200 sec. The organiser recommends this should be the setting. Am I
right that whether 1/125 or 1/200 is used should make no difference as
we are looking at about half a stop for the ambient light only? Is
there any benefit in using the slower speed as a margin of safety?

If your Nikon has a recommended sync speed, then it is reasonable to
assume that it will work properly at that speed. Whilst it shouldn't
make much difference using a slower shutter speed, a faster shutter
speed will reduce the risk of any camera shake affecting the sharpness
of the photograph.

The 1/200 sec recommendation came from the studio manager. The
instruction booklet (200 pages long) suggests 1/200 'or slower'. I was wondering whether using a slower speed such as 1/125 would increase
the proportion of ambient light and benefit the photo. However, I take
your point about camera shake. When I learned with film, I understood
that ambient light could be disregarded in a studio setting. I suspect
the ambient light will be immaterial though?

I have a Panasonic Lumix which I use most of the time because it is
small enough to carry in a pocket. I find that provided I can rest it
against something or on something to hold it steady, the photos I take
with "force flash off" look a nicer contrast than ones using the flash.

My other camera is a pretty old Pentax DSLR, and it takes its best
pictures with a "fill-in flash" rather than relying on mainly flash
illumination. For that I set the shutter speed to 1/125 (the highest
that has the shutter fully open at the time the flash fires) and let the
camera work out the appropriate aperture for the picture. It seems to
work well in pictures with a big range of contrast when seen with my eyes.

Thanks to everyone. I guess the best approach is to use the
opportunity to experiment.

That is the real bonus of digital photography, the ability to take a
range of shots and view the outcome at the time you take them, and the
fact that the ones you discard have cost you nothing except a bit of
time. It is much better than taking a similar range of shots on film
where the cost of the film and processing makes the ones you want to
keep more expensive per shot depending on how many you throw away.

However there is a spin off. If you get used to which scenarios suit
which camera settings using a digital camera, you can apply that
knowledge to film photos and often get a good result from a single photo attempt.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2