Are there any pro photographers who never use flash?

[steve_hovland]

Cheryl:

 

If you take incident readings 1-2 feet from a window you will find that the light on the shadow side is about 4 stops less than the bright side. This will tend to plunge the shadow side into very low values unless you do something about it. This much contrast will make autoexposure crazy and likely burn the highlights on the window side to a crisp.

 

I would suggest that your mere presence in the room is obtrusive, and is amplified by the sounds of your movements and your camera. Adding a little pop of flash doesn't add much to that :-)

 

It may be useful to separate candids from posed shots when it comes to making people at ease. For candids, if you are outside of their personal space (beyond 7 feet or so) most people won't notice you taking their picture if they are paying attention to something else (like another person) until they hear the camera or see the flash. Even then they won't be sure they are the subject. It also helps to be fast when you do this. Mucking around with focus or composition makes you obvious.

 

Here are two citations that indicate 75% extroversion:

 

http://www.healthleader.uthouston.edu/archive/mind_body_soul/2005/introvertsvsextroverts-1221.html

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=j_rxMcrk7IsC&pg=PA80&lpg=PA80&dq=what+percentage+of+people+are+extroverts&source=web&ots=nuubDfR6oU&sig=YGZy79MUYi_bzqEz35gm6Y0bEBQ&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=10&ct=result

 

Ed:

 

If you look at the bride's skirt in Jeff's picture you can see signs that there is another source of light in the room- window, door, or flash. Only Jeff can say. Without that extra light you would only see a silhouette. If it is on-camera flash, give Jeff credit for being skillful enough to turn his flash-head to the right.

 

Neither using flash nor not using flash makes one professional. Knowing how to get beautiful pictures does, and I would suggest that not using flash when it really would help is just as unprofessional as using flash when it's not necessary.

 

I also spend some time in the video world, and there the watchword is "Content is King." Which means that a great reaction or interation capture with obvious flash would be superior to a boring shot without flash.

 

Ilkka:

 

Technically, at the moment of capture, flash, reflectors, or subject arrangement are the only ways to reduce contrast.

 

You can use D-Light in the Nikon world, but the information for the D-light processing has to be there in order for it to work, and in high contrast lighting that information may be missing. Even then I think the quality in the shadow areas will be less than it would be with fill-flash.

 

Reflectors take a lot more handling than on-camera flash, and the effect is very weak unless they are large and close.

 

Weddings offer many opportunities to capture fleeting expressions, but you can't move people around while they are happening.

[cheryl_jacobs]

Steve,

 

I am a natural light candid shooter for a living, and I teach workshops in those areas worldwide. I can tell you with 100%

assurance that your assertion of 4 stops darker on the shadow side is a ridiculous overstatement. I will address your

post in full tomorrow, as it's a bit on the late side for a detailed post tonight.

 

- CJ

[russ_konrad]

Cheryl,

 

I checked out your website. Very nice.

 

But I don't see any any wedding work displayed.

 

All of your comments would carry additional weight and credibility if you actually had experience and photographic examples of your wedding experience.

 

You may do very well in other areas of photography, but wedding photography is a different animal that is NOT in the direct control of the photographer. You need to capture what is happening at the time in the light that is available at that particular moment.

 

If the available light will give you no image or a bad image - a professional photographer will augment the available light with flash or other added (artificial) light.

 

Bottom line - an image captured with flash is much better than an image that was not captured because it was too dark for a "natural light candid shooter".

 

And another quick question - Is "natural light" only light from the sun? Do you only shoot if you have sunlight or light from the sun coming in a window? No disrespect intended - just curious as to what your definition of "natural light" is.

[steve_hovland]

Cheryl, more power to you. I was just reporting what my meter said. 3-4 stops. Sekonic L-358, dome retracted.

[jeffascough]

I'm gonna have to agree with everything CJ says. BTW I've seen her wedding work - take it from me, it's superb.

 

My gallery has been mentioned a couple of times. It is all available light. And yes I am obsessed with being unobtrusive. In my early career I

did the whole staged thing with the pictures. To me the wedding became the photographer's vision of the day rather than what actually

happened. So I switched style some 15 years ago and quadrupled my turnover overnight - I kind of opened my eyes to what my clients

wanted on their day....

[edrodgers]

I think there is another issue here that hasn't been brought up much.

 

If you have fast lenses and a good sensor or film behind it, you will find that it's much easier to shoot with the light everyone else at the event is using to see the event.

 

If Jeff is using a Noctilux or Summilux with film, he has an advantage over a photographer with a Nikon D70 with a kit lens. With my 5D and an 85 f/1.2, if you can see it, it can be recorded beautifully. Sure there are limitations, but that's where the whole skill thing comes in handy.

 

I see many levels of experience in this thread. Rank beginners, mid-level (me), advanced, and masters.

 

The masters are all saying the same thing, but some of us aren't hearing.

 

As a mid-level guy, I rely on flash quite a bit, but I know how to do without it if necessary. I'm working to use it less and less. Maybe someday, I can be called a master. But I'll never get there thinking that flash is a requirement. It really is a crutch. It's there because my skill level requires it.

 

By all means, use flash if you need it. I use it half the time. But the goal should be to make the images look natural. Either learn how to make the flash look natural, or learn how to do without. That's my mantra.

[jeffascough]

Ed - My main kit is a 1DsMKIII with a 24-70 f2.8L zoom lens....

 

I haven't used a Nocti on a wedding for over three years :))

 

Jeff

[cheryl_jacobs]

Finally back to my computer to comment. Will try not to be too wordy, particularly because I get to actually go out and

have some fun tonight, which is a minor miracle.

 

Russ, thanks for checking out my work. I do not have my wedding work online because right now I'm not accepting

wedding bookings. I have indeed shot several weddings, as Jeff pointed out (thanks for the compliment, Jeff) and that

work looks very much like the work you saw on my portrait site. So I can assure you that I am well aware of the

challenges of wedding photography. I'm no novice trying to portray a professional.

 

"And another quick question - Is "natural light" only light from the sun? Do you only shoot if you have sunlight or light

from the sun coming in a window? No disrespect intended - just curious as to what your definition of "natural light" is."

 

I work with natural light when the sun is up. I work with available light when the sun isn't available. It's very important to

my work to capture the scene as it looked to the guests, as Jeff already touched on. If the bride has gone to great

lengths to ensure a dim, candlelit reception, the last thing I'm going to do is pop a flash and disrupt the mood and

memory. I enjoy working with the videographer's light (when there is one) as well as with spotlights, candlelight,

moonlight, what-have-you.

 

One thing missing from this discussion thus far in regards to lighting is timing. With careful timing, just about any kind

of light can make for a beautiful shot. For example, during fireworks, if the photograph is taken from the right angle at

just the right time, the fireworks themselves can illuminate the faces as people look up at them. Light from directly

overhead can work beautifully when the bride tips her face up to speak to a guest. Timing, timing, timing.

 

Another factor is the steadiness of the photographer's hand. Some people are steadier than others, whether naturally or

through a lot of practice. I've learned out of necessity to handhold at very slow shutter speeds, which allows me to work

more steadily and quickly than some other photographers might. I shoot primarily medium format at weddings, which

means the fastest lens I have available is a f/2.8, like Jeff. You have to know your own capabilities and those of your

equipment inside an out to know how far you can push things and still have successful images.

 

"I also spend some time in the video world, and there the watchword is "Content is King." Which means that a great

reaction or interation capture with obvious flash would be superior to a boring shot without flash."

 

I'm married to an NFL cameraman, so I'm well aware of the "Content is King" mantra. What I don't understand is the rest

of your statement. Obviously the content is the most important thing, but that's no excuse for sloppy technique. As far

as I'm concerned, "a great reaction or intera[c}tion capture" deserves to be caught in a technically sound, beautiful way,

always. Technique should never upstage the subject -- particularly bad technique, which is what I would consider most

shots made with obvious (especially on-camera) flash.

 

There was more that I meant to say, but I'm getting old and forgetful. It'll come to me, maybe.

 

- CJ

[ellery_chua___singapore]

There is no one true exclusive way to work with light. How we work with light defines us as this sets the tone/nature/look of our work. As to which approach is the best, there is simply no one size fits all - even for a particular person using ambient light may have to work with reflectors (man made or naturally occuring) of one sort or another or may choose to exposure to for subject and let shadows and or hightlights go where they must - there are no absolutes as one would almost autoamatically go to mould the light you have at your disposal to use to make the picture. Polarization get us now where.

[steve_hovland]

Is "never use obvious flash" equivalent to saying "technique is king?"

[ilkka_nissila]

No, but if you cannot maintain visual consistency between flash and non-flash images, then it may be better to leave some out to

present a visually coherent whole. This isn't a comment against the use of flash, but I think it's very important to keep in

mind that the images are not presented in isolation from each other.

[cheryl_jacobs]

Steve,

 

Huh?

 

CJ

[steve_hovland]

Ilkka: How do you maintain visual consistency when you have both indoor and outdoor events at a wedding?

[steve_hovland]

Cheryl- do you think Weegee was a bad photographer?

[edrodgers]

Content is king, but technique is queen. :)

 

Why would anyone think only one of them is important?

[edrodgers]

Weegee was a great photographer, but it's a rare bride that would want him to do her wedding.

 

Not very warm and tender, was he? All that cold hard flash... :)

[steve_hovland]

Doing it Weegee's way would give you a very distinct style :-)

 

Maybe we should use it for our Bridezillas...

[ron_anderson6]

I have a Lowell i-light but have onlt used it outside; and even then, the B&G said it was blinding them. How does someone get away with using one? What are some modifiers that can easily be attached and carried around the dance floor by an assistant?

[steve_hovland]

Ron- for still work at weddings I would say that hot lights are a definite no-no. At best, you could bounce them in interiors, but that would change the mood of the venue in ways that probably would not be acceptable.

[russ_konrad]

(The following post actually combines two different ongoing threads here on photo.net.)

 

I'm actually surprised that more "natural light" (no flash) photographers have not switched to either of the latest and greatest digital offerings from Canon and Nikon.

 

The Nikon D3 (for example) can give you outstanding clean images at ISO 6400. I am not aware of ANY film formulation that can deliver that type of performance. I know that the top end Canon has very good high ISO performance as well although I cannot comment personally on that body since I have not used it.

[steve_c.5]

I agree, Russ. Clean high ISO performance is very important to my work.