rolleistef
Well-known
I don't have any flash and don't want any...
Well it's not completely true. I do own a flash but it's a very old soviet one and it works on the main, then it's not very convenient to use...
There's a built-in flash on my plastic-Nikon but since I don't use it anymore... Anyway, with a synch speed limted to 1/30th on most of my cameras (except the Rolleiflex on which the shutter is a SynchroCompur that beats most modern camera for synch speed, namely 1/500th of a second) it's hard to correctly use one without burning everything - beginning with the subject eyes...
Well it's not completely true. I do own a flash but it's a very old soviet one and it works on the main, then it's not very convenient to use...
There's a built-in flash on my plastic-Nikon but since I don't use it anymore... Anyway, with a synch speed limted to 1/30th on most of my cameras (except the Rolleiflex on which the shutter is a SynchroCompur that beats most modern camera for synch speed, namely 1/500th of a second) it's hard to correctly use one without burning everything - beginning with the subject eyes...
drewbarb
picnic like it's 1999
Chris- thanks for the link to the strobist blog- very interesting.
As for sync speed, I usually drag the shutter with flash, so my camera is generally set somewhere between 1/4 second and 1/30th. If theres enough light to need faster sync, there's probably enough light to shoot available only. That said, I do use the 1/50 occasionally, too. Cameras with faster sync speeds tend to be wasted on me, as I'll shoot slow anyway.
As for sync speed, I usually drag the shutter with flash, so my camera is generally set somewhere between 1/4 second and 1/30th. If theres enough light to need faster sync, there's probably enough light to shoot available only. That said, I do use the 1/50 occasionally, too. Cameras with faster sync speeds tend to be wasted on me, as I'll shoot slow anyway.
VinceC
Veteran
Faster syncs. 1/60 and above, are nice for outdoor fill.
K
Kin Lau
Guest
I'm glad Chris brought up the Strobist link. Anyone who doesn't use flash or doesn't know how to use flash, ought to at least read thru it once.
It's good to be able to broaden out in our knowledge of how to use the tools available to us.
It's good to be able to broaden out in our knowledge of how to use the tools available to us.
shutterfiend
cheap and lazy
drewbarb's point is a good one. Flash is a tool. A powerful tool just like photoshop. I completely understand the mandatory use of flash in a studio. (Sympathy for Ash and his filter-coated flashes). There's also a need to "make it look pretty" when you're taking pictures at an event, especially weddings (Nick R's picture is a perfect example). It can be made to look very natural (minor tones' pic - just splendid!). However, I'm really turned off by the whole "making it look pretty" thing. Or perhaps it's the kind of picture my wife shoots. Most of them are posed. Especially the ones she calls "candids". "... now look away from the camera to your left ... no not that far ...". Then there are the oblique shots, which she claims are "PJ Style". I'm sorry but locking your camera at a precise 33 degree angle on your custom bracket, using "three flashes and a reflector" and stamping out the distracting door frame in the background using photoshop is anything but photojournalistic or candid. It's understandable when you're shooting a wedding or event. Customers have a certain expectations and "pretty pictures" sell way better than true ones. But my wife loves her work so much she strives to extend it to our very own family portraits. "No! I like my hair sticking up like that. It shows my personality."
However, my obsession with available light has nothing to do with my wife. I think a picture captures the essence of a fragment of one's visual memory. Vision, for me, has more to do with incidental light on the subject than the subject itself. The one lasting memory of an ex-girlfriend is of how I remember her standing by the open window of her darkened room while everything outside was covered in snow and bathed by the full moon. It has absolutely nothing to do with her. The memory is about the how her skin shone in the moonlight. The light is what I remember. I wish I was into photography back then. It's hard making magical light like that with flashes and reflectors.
I like to include some information about the source of light in pictures I take, like shadows or lamps. Perhaps if I could use a flash properly I would know how the picture would turn out and can look forward to that. Without that knowledge, flash is too much of an unknown, except when it's absolutely necessary to make the shot (VinceC's post). So I guess I need to learn to use a flash and thanks to ChrisN now I don't have an excuse.
PS Glenn (egpj), my wife has a fascinating accidental "wedding flash" story I may share some day!
However, my obsession with available light has nothing to do with my wife. I think a picture captures the essence of a fragment of one's visual memory. Vision, for me, has more to do with incidental light on the subject than the subject itself. The one lasting memory of an ex-girlfriend is of how I remember her standing by the open window of her darkened room while everything outside was covered in snow and bathed by the full moon. It has absolutely nothing to do with her. The memory is about the how her skin shone in the moonlight. The light is what I remember. I wish I was into photography back then. It's hard making magical light like that with flashes and reflectors.
I like to include some information about the source of light in pictures I take, like shadows or lamps. Perhaps if I could use a flash properly I would know how the picture would turn out and can look forward to that. Without that knowledge, flash is too much of an unknown, except when it's absolutely necessary to make the shot (VinceC's post). So I guess I need to learn to use a flash and thanks to ChrisN now I don't have an excuse.
PS Glenn (egpj), my wife has a fascinating accidental "wedding flash" story I may share some day!
VinceC
Veteran
The strobist site has a good essay on not letting flash get in the way of a good photo:
http://strobist.blogspot.com/2006/04/dont-let-good-light-ruin-photo.html
>>In the photojournalism pecking order, content and moments trump cool light. If you are concentrating on light at the expense of the other two, you are short-changing yourself and your pictures.<<
and
>>I look at light like this: The primary benefit of adding light is to raise the quality level on low-yield assignments. That's a no-brainer.
You could say the same for portraits, but it is not always the case. I try to think of strobe light as an option, along with all of the ambient sources at my disposal at the assignment. I walk in ready to use a strobe, a window, a desk light, a florescent, a sunbeam - whatever is there. Any or all of the above.
Just don't walk in with your lighting technique set in stone and ready to do. The gift of being open to serendipity is one of the best strengths a shooter can have, IMO. Be ready for cool stuff to happen. Keep your eyes open.
And if it doesn't, (or if it was never going to in the first place) think up some cool light and do it up right.
To a hammer, everything looks like a nail. That's the trap. Don't be a hammer. Adding light is a great option. <<
http://strobist.blogspot.com/2006/04/dont-let-good-light-ruin-photo.html
>>In the photojournalism pecking order, content and moments trump cool light. If you are concentrating on light at the expense of the other two, you are short-changing yourself and your pictures.<<
and
>>I look at light like this: The primary benefit of adding light is to raise the quality level on low-yield assignments. That's a no-brainer.
You could say the same for portraits, but it is not always the case. I try to think of strobe light as an option, along with all of the ambient sources at my disposal at the assignment. I walk in ready to use a strobe, a window, a desk light, a florescent, a sunbeam - whatever is there. Any or all of the above.
Just don't walk in with your lighting technique set in stone and ready to do. The gift of being open to serendipity is one of the best strengths a shooter can have, IMO. Be ready for cool stuff to happen. Keep your eyes open.
And if it doesn't, (or if it was never going to in the first place) think up some cool light and do it up right.
To a hammer, everything looks like a nail. That's the trap. Don't be a hammer. Adding light is a great option. <<
R
RML
Guest
Yes, I read that part, and right he is.
But now for me the situation is exactly the opposite. I go available light because I don't know how to properly use flash.
But now for me the situation is exactly the opposite. I go available light because I don't know how to properly use flash.
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
VinceC
Veteran
You know, some people think popping flashbulbs ARE part of an important public event.
Not long ago, movie makers were dubbing in the sound of SLR motordrives during scenes showing press photographers, even if the cameras being shown didn't have motordrives.
When I was married in a small ceremony at the Fuerth Rathaus, outside of Nuernberg, my best man was a newspaper photographer, and he used flash on some of my wedding pictures. I'll be honest, on my wedding day, I have absolutely no recollection of a camera flash going off. My attention was focused on more important matters.
Not long ago, movie makers were dubbing in the sound of SLR motordrives during scenes showing press photographers, even if the cameras being shown didn't have motordrives.
When I was married in a small ceremony at the Fuerth Rathaus, outside of Nuernberg, my best man was a newspaper photographer, and he used flash on some of my wedding pictures. I'll be honest, on my wedding day, I have absolutely no recollection of a camera flash going off. My attention was focused on more important matters.
Topdog1
Well-known
As far as using flash properly goes, it's only at a RANGEFINDER forum that people could say they don't know how to use flash properly. With ttl flash, there is almost nothing to know, especially for fill flash. Since no vintage camera has it, and few modern ranegfinders have it, you actually have to know something about it to use it. I used to, then years ago I started using ttl flash. Now I'm a flash know-nothing. If I need to use flash I bring my dslr. It knows how to use flash. I sure don't.
/Ira
/Ira
shutterfiend
cheap and lazy
RML said:Who still marries in a church anyway?
Besides, the flash and crackle is remeniscent of fire crackers and salute shots. Have you not seen these images from Palestine et al? Where they fire rifles and pistols when celebrating? And how about the fireworks with New Year's and other big celebrations?
Extending that even further: street photography is like stealthy recon work as opposed to an all-out-battle like weddings, where you need to be loud and boisterous just to intimidate your enemy.
K
Kin Lau
Guest
Topdog1 said:
It's super easy with a Vivitar 283, which has been made since the early 70's. Virtually every auto-thyristor flash can be used in the same way.
With an RF and no mirror-blackout, you can even make sure the flash did go off, and also see the effect of the lighting.
VinceC
Veteran
Agree with Kin. Flash is easier with rangefinders because you know it went off, and you can see if someone blinked. Virtually every currently usable flash includes an autothyristor, which provides excellent exposure control. TTL flash is mainly important for long telephoto lenses that rangefinder cameras can't handle anyway,
Topdog1
Well-known
I guess I should RTFM, as we used to say.
/Ira
/Ira
FrankS
Registered User
I love the look of available light, and on-camera flash is the antithesis of that, however using a monolight studio flash and umbrella is a whole bunch of fun, creativity-wise with portraits.
K
Kin Lau
Guest
FrankS said:
Yes, I agree that on-camera direct flash has perpetrated some of the worse lighting in photography, but it doesn't have to always look like a Weegee moment.
Bouncing off a white wall or ceiling tho, is like having a 10ft by 10ft softbox. You can also work wonders with a 3 or 4 ft PC-cord & an auto-thyristor flash.
If you're shooting B&W, then every reflective surface can be used for flash bounce.
It's interesting that in the past year or so that I've been reading Strobist, I don't point the flash directly at anyone anymore.
tkluck
Well-known
Available light is wonderful, unless there is no light available...
I have a half dozen flash units that I use regularly, and a case of flash cubes. (handy to have in your pocket when a flash moment catches you by surprise.) If press 100's weren't $10 apiece I'd get some more of those too. I do draw the line at home made flash powder...
I suppose I don't take many successfully artsy pictures, then again that went out the window with political correctness. At my age, getting enough fiber seems more important...
BTW:That link to the Strobist site is pure gold!
I have a half dozen flash units that I use regularly, and a case of flash cubes. (handy to have in your pocket when a flash moment catches you by surprise.) If press 100's weren't $10 apiece I'd get some more of those too. I do draw the line at home made flash powder...
I suppose I don't take many successfully artsy pictures, then again that went out the window with political correctness. At my age, getting enough fiber seems more important...
BTW:That link to the Strobist site is pure gold!
Last edited:
R
RML
Guest
Kin Lau said:
I like Weegee.
POINT OF VIEW
Established
If you can see it you can shoot it. Why blow out a great shot with added light.
Flash is great for journalism and point and shoot.
Flash is great for journalism and point and shoot.
Ara Ghajanian
Established
Flash? Why bother?
This is the main reason I bought a Leica... for hand holding slower shutter speed in low light situations.
Ara
This is the main reason I bought a Leica... for hand holding slower shutter speed in low light situations.
Ara