Are there any pro photographers who never use flash?

[manuel barrera houston,]

A master mechanic on a Porsche but not on a Chevy, is still a master mechanic. I don't do weddings, but I think

that one can be a pro and not do flash. The logic of the argument "A professional is expected to be prepared for

any situation within the domain of what they are shooting" escapes me. A professional knows his limitations I

think is a more appropriate argument. The questions was weddings, etc. I don't think it was limited to weddings.

A heart specialist is a doctor and pro, but that does not mean that he does cancer.

[jennifercatron]

Never is a very strong word. I shoot weddings for a living, and 90% of what I shoot is without flash. For receptions that have no natural light, I add a studio light to the dance floor, church weddings require you use a very fast lens, but Ive never used flash in a church. I have been known to bounce some light in a reception, but that's the only time I even consider it. My work depends on the fact that noone really know what Im shooting, thus the photojournalistic approach to weddings. I try to be as obscure as possible, and that's impossible to do if your flash is going off every three seconds.

[cheryl_jacobs]

I know how to use flash. I choose to never use it, and I do mean never. I simply don't like it, and greatly prefer the

challenge of making use of what is available to me. I don't shoot a lot of wedding because I simply don't enjoy them, but

when I have, they have been done entirely with available light.

 

I'm a big fan of mastering that which scares me, and I would advise other photographers to do the same. That said, you

most certainly do not have to use flash if you choose not to, particularly in portrait work, which was part of the original

question.

 

- CJ

[gsaphoto]

Well, it already said here -- use it or don't use it. Another word 50/50. I have two cameras one with flash plus additional radio slaves in room, another camera with f/1.4 lens. If I fill comfortable with flash lamp I use it, if I see that it can be done just using f/1.4 lens - I use camera without flash lamp. Only one minus - you need carry second camera, on other hand you have more creativity during event.

[lou korell]

"A heart specialist is a doctor and pro, but that does not mean that he does cancer."

 

But they both go to medical school to learn all of the fundamentals of medicine. In order to be called "Doctor" it is a requirement.

[richard_king2]

Im sure some professionals never use flash. However it is foolish to say one would never consider it. Wedding photography is a mixed dicipline - and requires the photographer to be totally creative and damm flexible. In the past I have used car headlights, flash, a huge reflector next to the only window in the room with light - you do whatever it takes

 

If I were a plumber, it would be like saying I would never use pushfit joints or compression joints - only soldered ones. For sure having that attitude wont get you very far, and in certain situations, you would not be able to complete the job. I see Wedding photography in the same way. I turn up at a venue, work whats there, and when needed use flash, reflectors, and any light available

 

There is a tendancy to use faster and faster lenses which only means a limited DOF. the other choice is a high ISO, and plety of noise. Each scenario pops ou into a corner, so why single out flash? Take all the tools with you, use whatever you need

[kiva]

Flash is my friend in wedding photography (now repeat that like a mantra Alice as you learn The Joy of flash).

 

Flash is an aide it's not more dominant than the photographer or the camera: it's an aid; it's safe.

 

Flash is similar to the other beginner Hump: the dreaded Formals.

 

Repeat after me: Formals are Fun ... .... Flash is my Friend ... if I want to do wedding photography.

 

(note: like Anything Else in life there are exceptions: just ignore the exceptions and learn flash and learn formals. you can get this under control If you honestly dig in and decide to learn it.)

[steve_c.5]

Well said, William! In my first post of this thread (4th down from the top) I referred to another topic I had posted some images to. I'd be very curious how someone like Cheryl Jacobs, who NEVER uses flash, would have handled those shots. I could have shot them without flash, but my clients would have hated them.

[picturesque]

Not to speak for Cheryl, but Jeff Ascough used to never use flash either. His response would have been to put the couple in better light or shoot in a way that one can with low light (an alternative but equally creative set up, angle or point of view, or not shoot the shot and get other great shots. I believe he now uses some flash, but keeps it to a minimum. He probably would opt not to shoot the fireworks shot. He might have shot the couple from inside, looking out, just before they made their run, where partial silhouette would have added to the image. You get the idea...

[edrodgers]

So the answer to the original question I think is "Yes." It is possible to avoid flash completely simply because there are photographers that do it effectively.

 

There are some that see flash as something that must be mastered, and the only reason people don't use flash is because they are afraid of it.

 

Others see flash as a crutch that creates un-natural looking photography, but helps the photographer out when they can't figure out how to make a shot work in poor light.

 

There are photojournalists that see flash as unethical because it modifies the appearance of the scene. Therefore, we must assume that there are wedding photojournalists that feel the same way.

 

I personally think it's better to start out trying to master flash, and then learn to avoid it when possible.

[steve_c.5]

Thanks for the perspective, Nadine. In the case of the fireworks shot, my couple specifically requested that series of

shots because they went to a lot of trouble to make that happen. It simply would not have worked without flash,

because it was so late which is how they planned it. I did do some brightening of levels in the background because it

was so dark. Simply electing not to do the shot would not have been an option for Jeff.

 

Like me, I'm sure you would have used flash for these shots, and I feel that flash made them better and more do-

able.

 

A month ago I was shooting an expensive wedding with a large wedding party, all African-American. The guys were

in brown suits and the girls were in brown dresses. The ceremony was at dusk, so there was no chance of shooting

the entire group in good lighting. I had strongly advised the bride against this early on, but she and her coordinator

had this "vision" which wound up being poorly implemented. There I was, shooting dark-skinned people in brown

clothing under an oak tree in pitch dark. The only auxilliary lighting there (thank God) was two large light cannons on

stands behind us, which a lighting crew had been hired to supply to light the ceremony in that spot. As I stood there

to shoot them, I cast a shadow against their dresses. It was hot, sweaty, and there was no time to reposition the

lights, so I augmented with an on-camera strobe and did the best I could. I don't carry a portable strobe setup. I

wonder how a non-flash purist would have handled that situation? There was literally no other location suitable for

these formal shots and they HAD to be done.

 

Afterward, the couple decided to go for a rowboat ride on the lake in pitch darkness. An idea that may have sounded

good until they actually tried to do it. I was expected to document this. No choice but to use flash, and none of these

images would win an award, but at least I got the shots.

 

Never say you'll NEVER use flash. You'd better know how to use one and have them available if you're going to

produce the results clients expect.

[ilkka_nissila]

<i>You'd better know how to use one and have them available if you're going to produce the results clients

expect.</i>

<p>

Why? If the clients are unwilling to work with the photographer to reach conditions in which good photography is

possible, then it should not be considered all the photographer's fault.

<p>

There are situations in which flash can provide excellent lighting. For example, when there are nice white walls

and ceilings. And in the studio where lighting can be tested beforehand and fine-tuned. Flash allows good colour

reproduction in situations where it would otherwise be impossible.

<p>

But outdoors in the dark with no reflecting surfaces? Group photos? I think I am going to exclude such conditions

in my future contract. I will just write that I will not photograph outdoors after sunset unless the client

purchases a $2000 option to provide assistants and lighting to create a movie-like lighting set. (Not that I know

how to create it, but for that money I will give it a good try!) I just did both the first dance and some group

photos at night on Saturday and the results are ugly. Though the expressions and timing are decent. If I were

more experienced and brave I would just put a stop to it and say that I cannot do it. But then a guest would take

the photos with even worse results than mine..

<p>

In my day job as a researcher I work with people who have similar goals and a compatible working style. Otherwise

life would be miserable. I think a photographer should also have the right to co-operative clients.

[steve_c.5]

Ilkka, I understand your sentiments, believe me. I wish I had more control over these situations, but when you're working with clients who don't understand the intricacies of our work, it's often difficult.

 

Your statement, "Flash allows good colour reproduction in situations where it would otherwise be impossible." is very true, as in the shots I posted and referred to. In retrospect, my fireworks shot would have been better if I had a slave strobe on the opposite side of the couple to backlight them, but I found myself too far away from my equipment case when this happened.

 

Like you, I would LOVE to have a clause in my contract stating that they'd have to pay a high additional fee for making bad decisions about shooting in the dark (truly a "shot in the dark"). But this would not work in practice. There is only so much we can do to influence these things, or clients will go elsewhere. I'd rather deal with it and have them hire me.

 

As such, I have made it my mission to master the use of flash in such adverse conditions. I've shot receptions with people socializing and dancing outdoors with no reflecting surfaces, and have produced great results that clients love. The lighting in these situations may be "ugly" as you put it, to some, but what we artists consider "ugly" lighting usually is seen very differently by clients. They expect you to use flash at receptions; to them, it's normal for flashes to go off when indoors. The techniques we use (off-camera strobes, diffusers, shutter dragging, etc.) are what set our work apart from the point and shoot camera shots their friends take.

[russ_konrad]

Flash is simply another tool that helps you capture the special day of your customers. Learn it and use it when necessary.

 

Steve C. showed us some excellent examples of "capturing the moment" that would have been impossible without using flash. Those moments in challenging lighting conditions are just as important to the customer as the ones in perfect "natural" lighting conditions.

 

 

 

IMHO - learn how to do it RIGHT before you agree to take any money for wedding photography or don't do it. People that are paying money for someone to capture their once-in-a-lifetime day deserve better!

[edrodgers]

"Learn it and use it when necessary or tell the customer that you are incapable of being professional enough to get the job done!"

 

Wow, Russ, what do you think? :)

[picturesque]

Steve--I think you and I don't have the same kind of star power that Jeff has... Anyway, I don't see why this topic has to become yet another polarizing issue. It is neither right or wrong. It isn't an indication that you are a professional or not. If you can make a successful business out of wedding photography never using flash, then more power to you.

[russ_konrad]

<b>"...It is neither right or wrong..."</b>

<p>

It does become "right or wrong" when you are hired to photograph a wedding and you get bad results from the first

dance shots. If you can take GREAT images on a very dark dance floor with no flash - AWESOME! But (IMHO) I

don't think there is anyone out there that can do that.

<p>

I shoot with a Nikon D3 that and can get acceptable (yet grainy) at ISO 12,800 on a dark dance floor, but there have

been situations where it is even too dark for that ISO.

<p>

My main concern is with the customers out there and their satisfaction. Many could read this thread and

conclude that they don't have to "bother" with flash since "Jeff" or someone else has built their business on that style

or model. That thought process could lead to some very disastrous results and very upset customers.

[steve_c.5]

I appreciate Russ' kind comments above, and I agree that I don't carry the "star power" of Jeff Ascough. I do carry flash units, though, and I feel they're essential.

 

I think this issue will become less polarizing (a nice photography term) as camera technology improves. When they can create cameras that go beyond today's technology in terms of high sensitivity with minimal or no digital noise (and even with Nikon's latest offerings we still aren't there), you'll see more and more natural light capture possible. Right now, digital noise is the enemy of natural light capture in low light, but it's getting better with every advance in sensor design.

[edrodgers]

Dancing by candle-like string lights last Saturday. No flash.

 

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3066/2727533578_df2ae82235.jpg

 

Same Day, Flash in the sun:

 

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3084/2726708987_c4ee77fbf5.jpg

 

Your point is well taken Russ, but I think it's a bit harsh to say it can't be done. Perhaps say that it's very hard to do. I wouldn't presume to say that you must use flash to be a professional. I have great respect for those (like Jeff) who master ambient light at the expense of strobe light.

 

If one is a beginner, they are going to mess up the flash shots as well. Wherever they can get the best results, and that's for them to decide.

 

 

Road to photography mastery:

 

Step 1: Ambient

 

Step 2: Flash

 

Step 3: Ambient

 

 

Most of us are stuck in step 2 I think. To all you beginners out there, don't skip step 2! :)

[edrodgers]

Hey! Why not do like Yervant? Just use a tungsten video light. (And a couple of assistants to carry it around..) It's like the happy medium, and would have done wonders for Steve's fireworks shot.

 

Does anyone know if he use strobes at all, or just the video light?

[picturesque]

Good point Ed. I don't think Yervant is a never use flash guy, but I could be wrong. Anyway, Russ, I also appreciate your point(s), but the fact remains that 'ugly' or untaken images do not have black and white meanings. If the customers of a photographer who never uses flash are happy, and don't think the images are ugly or don't miss the untaken images, who is to say these customers are not satisfied? You maybe, but not everyone will agree.

[wclark5179]

I strive, when I use a flash, to create images that light is an integral ingredient that is a part of the entire image without

being the dominant part that shows itself off.

[lou korell]

"But outdoors in the dark with no reflecting surfaces?"

 

Answer - video light. This discussion is referring to flash, but in reality many photographers prefer the use of video light instead to create a different look.

I believe the arguments about using flash or not using flash are useless. Photography is about painting with light. If you don't have the light you need for your "painting" you make it. Otherwise you just don't get that shot. You move on to find the light you think is best. That's your choice as a photographer.

 

But, if your client wants a shot of themselves in a rowboat on the water in the darkness....you can say sorry I don't do that, or you figure out how.

 

Lou

[steve_c.5]

Very true, Lou. Parker Pfister even uses a deer spot light modified for his portraits. Video lights are becoming common too.

 

In the case of the pitch-dark rowboat ride, I was hired for the whole evening, I was standing there, and I wasn't NOT going to try and shoot it, I just used flash and did the best I could. A natural light purist who doesn't pack a flash would have had no "shot" at getting anything. Again, not that the photos would win an award, but at least I got them and the clients are happy.

[ilkka_nissila]

One scenario I've been thinking about is that I would take a daylight balanced fluorescent light source (Kino Flo

or something like that) and set it up above the area the people are dancing in. Then I could use two flashes to

light the primary subject and have some light in the environment from above. Hmm.

 

I wonder how well the colour from the light sources can be made to match. For example, mixing halogen with

tungsten-filtered flash, or mixing daylight fluorescents with unfiltered flash, would these work equally well?

From what I've understood halogen is cheaper but fluorescent is a lot more energy efficient. Do the remaining

spectral peaks in the fluorescent affect colour reproduction a lot.

 

For close-up shots on an individual couple, speedlights on stands would work but if I would like to have a

baseline lighting for the whole area so that I can also do full body shots and multiple couples and I am not sure

if they have enough power after modifiers, also CLS can be a bit unpredictable as the distances to subject

change and also having remotes around increases the probability of actually a flash being in the frame, which

creates a bit too flashy effect, I would like for the lighting to remain inconspicuous. Thanks for your help, I

will experiment with the various ideas.