[csmoore]

Please comment on the white balance or anything else you can think of. Thank you!

[IMG] [/IMG]

[IMG] [/IMG]

[IMG] [/IMG]

[IMG] [/IMG]

[/IMG]

[imaspy]

the key issue is that they're all underexposed. how were you controlling exposure? also, be mindful of two things when bouncing: first, how far away is the surface being bounced off? and second, be careful of the colour of the bounce surface, as anything but white is going to add a colour cast to your images.

as for the WB itself, the first shot isn't too bad, but the rest look very blue-green to me (calibrated monitor). you should be able to improve the exposure in post though.

keep trying, once you get the knack, bounce flash photography is really fun

[rbefly]

Hello csmoore,
First, I'm no expert on flash photography, so I'll just offer some suggestions based on what has (and hasn't) worked for me.
Photo # 1- Overall good skin textures, nice relaxed pose. But, the shot is underexposed, about 1/2 to 2/3 stop. The black shirt blends into the background near the shoulder: This is what bounce flash is (ideally) supposed to correct, as well as providing the obvious indirect lighting look, which you did get.
On a personal choice note, I'd crop this photo from the bottom (beer cups!) and include the left hand of the younger man. Now the photo is more about friendship, less about drinking. JMO.
2- Better exposure, still about 1/3 stop too dark. Good pose and skin tones. Next time, you might ask the girl to remove her hat for 'just one photo', long-billed hats are deadly with bounce flash, harsh shadows on the eyes.
3) Perfect! This is what bounce is supposed to do. Much better exposure and detail, the separation from the background is exactly what's needed. Imagine this lighting effect on the other shots.
4- Good even lighting overall, but again exposure too dark, about 1/2 stop. Nice relaxed pose.
The three choices you have to improve exposures are- more flash power, lower f/stop number, higher ISO. Each has its drawbacks, it's up to you to decide which compromise is best for the situation.
You might also look into a small (6" square or so) softbox diffuser for the flash head. Yes, it's one more gadget to carry around and fuss with, but it really helps to diffuse and soften the light, and has the added benefit of filling in a small amount of direct-light, which will add the appealing catchlights to the subject's eyes.
The downside is it eats (more!) flash power, but again, power output, f/stop, ISO are your solutions.
Overall you got some good, relaxed poses and compositions (with the one exception noted, YMMV), the lighting is even and the shots are sharp. You're on the right track!
Ron

[csmoore]

Thanks for the comments guys! I figured the WB would be a little wonky, but there's unfortunately not much I can do about it since I'm working on a pretty old monitor. I've tried some free color correct software in the past but it can only do so much.

What's the lowest shutterspeed I can go with a flash while still being safe? The lowest I was at all night was like 1/80 F2.8, but most of the shots were somewhere at 1/100+ F4.

[rbefly]

The shutter speed selection won't help too much with indoor flash shots. Slowing down the shutter lets in more ambient light (as opposed to the flash, in other words the ratio of ambient to flash is changed) because the ambient light is generally artificial lighting. If you correct for this, the entire photo changes, your white balance will be very tricky. The exception to this situation is when the indoor light is sunlight.
Also, with slow flash-sync speeds you run into the problem of 'ghosting', where there's a slight subject movement (or camera shake) during the exposure. It results in a faint 'shadow' or ghostly blur around the subject. The flash froze the overall shot, but the longer shutter lag allowed movement to be recorded.
With the f/stops and shutter speeds you noted, the solution is ISO. Raise this and you get better exposures with safe shutter speeds and useable f/stops.
And more noise...that's the tradeoff.
Or, more flash output. A whole 'nuther problem. I'd go with raising the ISO.
JMO
Ron

[wombat2go]

The AF360 is complicated to learn, but it is very versatile and I like its manual mode, adjustable from full to 1/32 power.
First shot with the SMC Pentax -M 1:2.8 28mm at iso 200, f/2.8, and 1/45 sec and flash is off.
Second shot is same, with AF360 at 1/8th power and pointing vertically upwards.

[Gregory_51]

The others have mentioned most of the things regarding what to do next time. A small piece of white cardboard attached to the flash head will kick a bit of light forward to fill in shadows and add a bit of a catchlight to the eyes and doesn't cost a thing. As for these images most are underexposed. I don't know what software you are using but photoshop elements has a lot of automatic fixes available. I edited these to show what changes can be made after the fact and some crop suggestions. Not perfect just quick edits to show what can be done.
Suggested edit of photo by csmoore | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
Suggested edit of photo by csmoore | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
Suggested edit of photo by csmoore | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
Suggested edit of photo by csmoore | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
The next ones you take should be better as we learn best from our mistakes.

[mrNewt]

Keep in mind that in large indoor areas where ceiling is higher, bouncing the flash from the ceiling might not be as effective as in smaller indoors areas where ceiling sits lower.
In that case you have to use different power outputs for the flash OR if even on the maximum output you still get underexposed images you have to find other ways to bounce your flash or play with the aperture/ISO.
Sometimes working with 2-3 flashes on stands will give better results - but that's a whole different discussion by itself.

That being said, your images are not that bad. Better to be slightly underexposed than overexposed. You can easily post-process them and bring back the right exposure. Also in PP you can fix any WB issues you might have.

As a conclusion, is OK to have images slightly underexposed if you have no other solution, but pay attention to framing and DOF.
Slightly underexposed images can be fixed after - don't overexposed though.