Flash

I never use flash when taking pictures.

Who else shoots only using available light and does not "post process" their images.

Just curious.

:).

It's worth learning, you don't have to use strobes, but it's nice to have the option.

A good artificially lit photo is one where you can't immediately tell that strobe(s) were used.

You can manipulate 'natural' light too, with a reflector for example, is that still 'available light'?

 

(snipped)

 

You can manipulate 'natural' light too, with a reflector for example, is that still 'available light'?

Good question , I would say that if you manipulate "natural" light with "natural" reflectors , such as a wall , window or some such , then it is ("availabe light") , using an artificial strategically placed reflector does not qualify in my book.

Just my thoughts.

:)

Cheers.

I’m a purist. I think all light, available and unavailable, is cheating, so I only shoot in the dark.

[No post processing contributed to the making of this photo. It’s real.]

I never use flash when taking pictures.

Who else shoots only using available light and does not "post process" their images.

Just curious.

:).

How do you define no post process? I always shoot raw so using the raw converter is post process?

I’m a purist. I think all light, available and unavailable, is cheating, so I only shoot in the dark.

[No post processing contributed to the making of this photo. It’s real.]

[ATTACH=full]1389176[/ATTACH]

freedom © the unadulterated photographer

Did you shoot the picture with the camera? I have a lot of pictures like yours but I didn't use a camera because that way I can have more pixels than using my cameras.

If you shoot wedding, without flash you are dead.

But many weddings do not allow the use of flash.

When I was a mere pup, I became a follower of the great, but underappreciated, photographer for the Christian Science Monitor, Gordon N Converse.

his early experience:

On stage were more than a hundred members of the Boston Symphony Orchestra, one

conductor, and one green photographer. The imposing Serge Koussevitzky had

grudgingly given permission to have photographs taken of him at a busy morning

rehearsal. With a large Speed Graphic camera and a pocketful of flash

bulbs I found a comfortable spot on the floor somewhere in the maze of

first and second violins. My view of the podium was excellent until I was forced

to start dodging the violin bows that were swishing through the air like spears.

The orchestra had warmed up and the time seemed right to start taking

pictures of conductor Koussevitzky in action. We were deep into Beethoven's

Fifth Symphony. I raised my camera and squeezed the flash button. ThenPOW!

The large flash bulb exploded with the sound of a gun firing, and the

defective bulb showered the entire stage with burning bits of magnesium. The

music abruptly stopped. Dead silence filled the grand hall. Koussevitzky stiffened

and slowly turned. His eyes focused directly on me. He shouted just one

word in Russian-OUT! (I needed no translation.)

This incident proved to be useful. It forced me to experiment with natural

light photography long before it seemed wise or practical for newspaper work. I

vowed never again to allow my camera to invade or disrupt the lives of other

people. Since that day I have never used a flash on any of my cameras. Simply,

it's not polite!

Gordon N. Converse

I am not a total abstainer, but I rarely use flash when there is any ambient light. To do that, I put up with f/1.2 lenses and films like GAF 500. Even the noise of ISO 12,500!:rolleyes:

does not "post process" their images

Everyone postprocesses their images. You can't view a digital image without processing. The people who shoot JPEG and don't do further postprocessing are using a canned recipe for postprocessing--some combination of color balance, sharpening, contrast, etc., that was put together by an engineer without (obviously ) looking at your particular image. Most cameras have a menu of these canned recipes, with names like "landscape" and "portrait". The people who shoot raw or shoot JPEG and do additional postprocessing are taking some control over what their image looks like. This is as much a key skill in photography as learning to control the camera.

Everyone postprocesses their images. You can't view a digital image without processing. The people who shoot JPEG and don't do further postprocessing are using a canned recipe for postprocessing--some combination of color balance, sharpening, contrast, etc., that was put together by an engineer without (obviously ) looking at your particular image. Most cameras have a menu of these canned recipes, with names like "landscape" and "portrait". The people who shoot raw or shoot JPEG and do additional postprocessing are taking some control over what their image looks like. This is as much a key skill in photography as learning to control the camera.

Yeah , digital "photography" CAN be really confusing now , can it not , perhaps it is time to find another name for our hobby :D:D:D.

With film I used flash all the time both indoors (never direct flash), and outdoors for fill. I continued this with digital cameras until I started using a Canon 5D (mark I), which had decent high ISO performance up to about 1600 and better DR (than my previous digital camera). With this camera I started leaving the big shoe mounted flash at home. Now I almost never use flash but I don't shoot weddings. I would expect that with a modern FF camera, one can do weddings and similar events without extensive use of flash.

My new Iphone 12 does have shockingly good performance in low light shooting at a purported 1000 ISO, or perhaps it merges 10 100 ISO photos using it's computational magic.

Not a big proponent of shooting JPEG and post process images as needed. I don't do much processing of smartphone images besides cropping and some mild color balance for indoor lighting.

We were deep into Beethoven's Fifth Symphony. I raised my camera and squeezed the flash button. ThenPOW! The large flash bulb exploded with the sound of a gun firing, and the defective bulb showered the entire stage with burning bits of magnesium.

Converse should have saved his flash fireworks for later in the evening when the orchestra played Tchaikovsky’s 1812 Overture. Some great stuff can happen with a camera if you’re in the right place at the right time! :eek:

Anyway, he’s lucky von Karajan wasn’t conducting or he might not have lived to tell the tale. :)

I don't enjoy using flash, but will use it it when necessary. It's a tool. I don't enjoy using a toilet plunger, but if necessary, I will use it.

I post-process most of my images.

I never use flash when taking pictures.

Who else shoots only using available light and does not "post process" their images.

Just curious.

:).

JPEG or RAW, IMO, falls into the area of personal preference and the results the photographer requires and achieves with either method. When I used flash frequently, it was never a problem, you become accustomed to it and it becomes automatic. These days, I use the built in flash for fill sometimes, and rarely in low light situations. When the one project I do every year that requires more power and a bigger flash approaches, I set up the gear and practice. Other than studio type settings or for a little fill, I don't find the flash "look" to be attractive except in limited applications. Again a matter of personal preference and taste.

Years ago, i was afraid to use flash, so I defaulted to the " I'm an available light photographer" bit. Even today I'm still confused on the use of speed-lights. I find them harder to use and understand than studio lights where everything is pre-planned. Throughout the years, I read books and books on how to use speed-lights, some good some not so good.

Neil van Nierkerk Photographer NJ & NYC - NJ / NYC photographer / New Jersey is one of the premier photographers that uses flash on a regular basis. His books opened my mind on a lot of things concerning hand-held flash units, especially the dreaded iTTL, eTTl and TTL . Instead of running away from flash (although I love available light photography) I am determined to run towards it and to one day master it. I can't say I have it mastered now...

But many weddings do not allow the use of flash.

Many priests, ministers, judges, presiders etc. won't allow flash during the ceremony but a flash/strobe sure can come in handy at the reception, group photos, walk down the aisle and other elements of a wedding.

Many priests, ministers, judges, presiders etc. won't allow flash during the ceremony but a flash/strobe sure can come in handy at the reception, group photos, walk down the aisle and other elements of a wedding.

Oh well many professional wedding photographers create impressive album by shooting before the wedding day.

I find flash to be helpful for certain kinds of shots, e.g. candid head shots with severe backlighting and no alternative position from which to shoot. It’s no less “authentic” than post processing, and it’s sometimes the best way to bring out a face or object otherwise enshrouded in shadow or other darkness.

I felt the same way about flash vs dodging and burning.

Almost posted a snarky reply about purism

I always welcome snarky comments about purism. :)

Seriously, though, authenticity has little if anything to do with post processing or using a flash. As a matter of fact, I think all kinds of artifice can be successfully employed in the most authentic of expressions.

The definition of authentic I tend to think of when it comes to art is ...

"true to one's own personality, spirit, or character"

With that definition in mind, I'd say post processing can yield some of the most authentic photos; photos on which the photographer has imprinted his chosen mark.

Authenticity has less to do with finding things as is or getting something "right" in the camera. IMO, it has to do with expressing oneself genuinely, sincerely, and honestly.

When I will be able to afford North facing studio, with large windows and high ceilings, maybe I will try 'purism' and natural light only, just for fun of it. Until then, my 300 dollars investment in couple wireless flashes with stands and modifiers does the trick.

And by the way, Diane Arbus and Weegee had lots of authenticity using direct flash.