[applejax]

thanks slowpez and Daniel_r. I can't hold credit for the kid, he's a cousin.

[Rupert]

Rupert, they look really good. Your setup sounds similar to mine - how close to the subject were you, and was it a normal (8' or so) height ceiling?

Thanks! About 5-8 feet away, 8' ceiling, textured. I chalk these up to luck more than my ability, I always hate to use flash, but it is necessary in many cases as it was here. They still exhibit some of the things I hate about flash, like eye distortion, but they do beat not getting a shot!
Best Regards!

My Dolly always looks better without flash.....it's her eyes that make her special......no , they make the shots special, my Dolly is special no matter what!
[IMG] [/IMG]

Baby Blues.....Gorgeous!
[IMG] [/IMG]

[slowpez]

Oh, Rupert, you are going to be so busy fighting off the boys when she grows up. What a beautiful girl.

[JeffJS]

Rupert, I see Miss Dolly is growing up. Won't be long and she'll be coming buy on her own for the Tuesday photo shoots.

Applejax, the 540 does not have the secondary front fill flash referred to. When you pull that bounce diffuser on the top, you are doing two things. First you are zooming the flash head all the way forward so it will fire as if you had a 16mm lens on the camera. Second, you are bouncing the light not so much off of the ceiling or wall but off that diffuser card. Personally, I never liked that arrangement and like others, put a Stofen on the flash. If you really want to bounce the flash, I'd suggest leaving the diffuser in the flash and just doing the bounce instead.

[applejax]

I am misspeaking - the Stofen is what I'm using. One of these things, but for the 540 not the 360:

Amazon.com: Sto-Fen Omni-Bounce for the Pentax AF360-FGZ Flash.: Electronics

I angle the flash under the old "angle of incidence equals the angle of reflection" to hit the subject.

[Mike Cash]

That explains the angle of light on the first photo and the reflection of the flash in the eyes on the other two. You're bouncing SOME light off the ceiling but the main part is just plain old-fashioned ugly light from straight-ahead, even though it is somewhat modified.

Take a look at these by way of comparison. They were done with no modifier and with the flash head aimed straight up (with a couple of exceptions). The flash was in auto mode for f5.6 output. As you can see, some were very close, others more distant. But none with shadows indicating a light source from the camera, which one of those diffusers has a hard time not producing.

[Rupert]

I use the same Omni Bounce as Applejax, and while I am no flash wizard for sure, it immediately made a big difference in my flash shots. I don't go without it now unless I need some distance light.
Those shots you linked to Mike are excellent, I will try your method and see what happens. Many times you have no way to bounce a light properly, and that is where the Omni Bounce comes in very handy, just aim it at a slight angle upward or even straight on in M mode with the power adjusted accordingly. Flash is hard work for me......I never get quite what I want, but sometimes get close.

Best Regards!

[Mike Cash]

Thank you, Rupert. As you say, we don't always have a choice in the matter and have to struggle along the best we can with what we have at hand. When we have a normal height white ceiling, though, it is worthwhile to give a try to leaving off the various attachments and just go for shooting the flash straight at the ceiling. We can be sure of light bouncing downward from the ceiling, giving a more natural appearance and perhaps not even looking like a flash photo at all. With one of those diffuser attachments it will absolutely look better than the "deer-in-the-headlights" obvious flash shots from a plain flash shot straight at the subject.....but odds are it is still going to look like a flash photo shot kinda-sorta-more-or-less straight at the subject, just with softer edges to the shadows.

In the photos I linked to, I was surprised myself when I was taking them. I wasn't surprised that the technique worked; I knew it would and they came out about like I expected them to. What surprised me was when I checked the LCD review screen on a couple of shots where the flash didn't go off (because I didn't wait for it to recharge).....the photos were very nearly black. That means the ambient lighting in the room was effectively playing no role in the exposure and all the light you see in the exposure was provided by the flash bouncing off the ceiling and around the room.

For the OP, something I just thought of: With a little time and effort it is possible to not stink with an external flash. But there is no way here on God's footstool to ever not stink with the built-in flash.