Odd flash technique I saw today outdoors.

<p>Hi,</p>

<p>I went to the local beauty spot today to watch a steady stream of photographers do formals. I was really surprised at many things I saw but two things stick out and I wondered if they are acceptable or even useful techniques. </p>

<p>1. On flash camera 580ex or something similar pointed directly at the sky with the little white card pulled out , I assume to throw light forward. Given the photographer was 5 meters from the bride I wondered if his flash was having any impact on the shot at all. The ambient light was very low i measured it at F2.8 & 60sec at ISO 100. This guy was huffing and puffing a lot and apart from that was directing the bride in a fashion that seemed very harsh. </p>

<p>2. Same thing but what looked to be a Gary Fong light fitting. I didnt get the point of this fitting since it at best makes the light source marginally bigger and seemed to only waste flash power given there was nothing to bounce the light off. It too was pointed at the sky or to one side if the photographer was shooting in portrait orientation. </p>

<p>Honestly I came away from watching these two guys in particular wondering if they knew what they were at , is that gut feel wrong and why. Very easy to be an armchair judge but my intention is to find one of these guys who looks like they know what they are doing and ask to be a moveable light stand etc. </p>

<p>Dumb and dumber :-)</p>

<p>Did you notice if they left the lens caps on?</p>

<p>Thanks so it is like that then, it seemed to my knowledge which I dont profess to be vast to be useless at best. If guys like this are winning business I have to ask myself is wedding photography a road I want to go down since they are getting picked by brides. From a professionals side of the coin does competing with that lead to loss of hair?</p>

<p>The only plausible reason I can imagine for #1 (or #2) is to put a little bit of catch-light in the eyes and get it a little more off-axis than pointing the flash directly at the subject.</p>

<p>Okay, that's a stretch. I agree with "dumb & dumber".</p>

<blockquote>

<p>From a professionals side of the coin does competing with that lead to loss of hair?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, on the contrary I find it encouraging!</p>

<p>I vote for the catch light in the eye.</p>

<p>The whole "Gary Fong" etc., is like fishing lures. They catch fishermen, not fish.....</p>

<p>At 5 meters or 15 feet away I am having a hard time with the catch lights but Ill be back there tommorrow and Ill give it a whirl and see if I can get a catch light in my girlfriends eyes. I observed this for a while as they moved to different spots at no point in low and flat light was there a hint of any other type of lighting technique. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>If guys like this are winning business I have to ask myself is wedding photography a road I want to go down since they are getting picked by brides.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I can't comment on the particular photographers.</p>

<p>But if you imagine the average photographer has 90% of his resources (education, practice, enthusiasm, time) devoted to photography and 10% to business, what you're seeing could very well be someone with 10% of his resources devoted to photography and 90% to business.</p>

<p>I may be a gourmet cook, but I can't run a restaurant. An executive chef devotes himself to the business of food.</p>

<p>I saw a lady shoot a family when the sun had set....and she put their backs to it, with no flash. Oh, and had them jump, so no dragging the shutter. Can't figure that out, either.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I saw a lady shoot a family when the sun had set....and she put their backs to it, with no flash. Oh, and had them jump, so no dragging the shutter.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That sounds like the sort of thing I would do!</p>

 

<p>I saw a local "photographer" shooting streetscapes with a 580 aimed directly at the sky with a diffuser, maybe they know something we dont?</p>

<p>Well, on a cloudy day, doesn't the flash eventually hit the clouds and come back down..... 8-)</p>

<p>I wouldn't even consider a Gary 'Wrong' indoors, much less outside. Then again, I'm old school and like my parabolic reflector QFlash. Sounds to me like a couple folks that heard that direct flash is bad, bad, bad, never good, no direct flash, etc. and went with it.</p>

<p>How quick you all are to judge! What is that joke about photographers and lightbulbs?</p>

<p>I've seen people shooting in ways that surprised me, too. And I've been even more surprised at the amazing results!</p>

<p>To weigh in: I often shoot outdoors with my 580EX and Gary Fong (or similar device) on camera. It provides a more diffused fill than straight flash (either off or on camera), and adds just a slight catch light. I don't typically shoot with a lot of aux. lighting, so I don't want photos to look "lit," most of the time. But sometimes you just need that little "kick," and I've found this to be an easy method of getting it if you're a) strapped for time b) unable to do a proper set-up or c) just wanting very casual, minimal fill.</p>

<p>Elle, <br /> I have said that already I am not experienced and perhaps I am somewhat influenced in my opinion because I saw how the photographers looked which i can describe as huffy and puffy and anxiously checking the LCD . I shoot film so dont have that luxury or need. The other thing was the subject management which did nothing to help the bride relax and look her best, think of snapping of fingers to get her attention. So perhaps incorrectly I assumed that they did not know what they were at and read on some forum that a fong was what the professionals used.. perhaps. It just struck me as odd to fire a flash into the sky with a tiny percentage of the light being fired forward with the subject quite distant as a technique that was being consistantly used. The Fong at least seemed to throw a little bit more forward but mere physics says the light source size impacts the softness of the light so why not just put the flash on lowest power and fire it at the subject when you are well back from the subject .. thoughts. As for a 3x3 cm piece of white card throwing any light forward at 5 meters .. I have doubts but will do a test tommorrow. This being said it is something you are doing and getting results care to share a little more , conditions as I said were flat lighting , it was overcast f2.8 60sec ISO100. Before I started this thread i was confused by it but in thinking more about it getting results in that setup is something im dubious about but will try cerca the same time tommorrow.</p>

<p>Hey John,</p>

<p>My comment was meant in jest, so please don't feel slighted.<br>

Only you know for sure how these dudes were acting, and I can certainly say I've seen my fair share of unprofessional "professionals." You know them when you see them.</p>

<p>I just wanted to point out to everyone in the thread (many of whom were quite critical of diffused flash outdoors) that every photographer has their own unique ways of getting the shot. I know I've tried to replicate certain techniques I've observed, and failed miserably.</p>

<p>If it was ME shooting at that scene, I'd probably bump up the ISO so that I could get an ap. of between f4 and f8 (depending on the number of people being photographed). I'd likely only use the diffused flash if there was any form of backlighting. Otherwise, I'd probably just enjoy the overcast day. OR I'd use a lower ISO and very minimal fill flash with the diffuser.<br>

The reason I don't like to point my flash directly at my subjects, is that I find it too flat.Sometimes it's alright, but others I prefer the diffuser. I don't use a bracket, and the diffuser allows me to control where the light is a bit easier, and it softens it considerably (surprisingly).</p>

<p>Hope that helps your experiments tomorrow.</p>

<p>Are you sure it was a Canon 580 EX or perhaps Beldar Conehead's camera flash?</p>

<p>I'm with Elle. I shoot outdoors with my 580EX II and a standard Stoffen diffuser all the time. And I do tilt the flash slightly upward, usually about 15% off horizontal. Just adds a nice soft, but fully enveloping light. In fact, I shoot almost all the time, indoor or out, with flash. Just taught myself how to use flash under most conditions, and feel it gives me one more element of control. There are situations when I do recognize the beauty of the natural light, and do take advantage of that also. One thing to also mention is that flash outdoors helps lessen "raccoon eyes" in human subjects. In flower photography, which I am doing most of these days, it softens the sunlight and lessens the contrast. One of these days I will get one of the Gary Fong diffusers. I have been told by many pros I know, including those shooting for the SF Chronicle, that you don't know on camera flash until you use one. They do look a little "gadget freaky" to me, and have to admit that is what's holding me back. Hard to argue with the pros, though.</p>

<p>Theresa, that sounds like the photographer was trying to get silhouette shots of participants airborne, based on your description which if it's the fact, should be quite cool actually.</p>

<p>Wilson I suppose that possibility is a lesson in dont jump to conclusions about what is happening. Daniel the flash was pointed fully upwards there was no forward tilt component. </p>

<p>I was at a wedding once, the photographer had the flash pointing straight up, no card/Fong/etc. I was wondering what the point was, the ceilings were so high I couldn't imagine the flash was doing any good? But surely the pro knew what he was doing....</p>

<p>I later found out that the photographer was a friend of the groom's, he didn't do weddings, and the bride and groom were very unhappy with the results. So maybe I know more than I realized?</p>

<p>Goofballs or geniuses? Without seeing the photographs we'll never know. ;) </p>

<p>Since this guy was more than 15 feet away with the flash pointed straight up and nothing to bounce the flash off of, the laws of physics will tell you that he couldn't carry the small amount of light that might have been directed forward off the white card to provide any illumination to the subjects. He was certainly wasting battery power throwing all that light to the great big beyond. I might be inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt and guess that he might have been much closer in some shots that preceded these where he might have garnered some catch-lights and just neglected to adjust the flash head. The fact that he had at least had a flash and that it was on during the outside shots also does elevate him from a few newcomers that never use flash outdoors.</p>