Is high power flash still necessary along with today high ISO perfection?

[chuck_t]

Remember the old wedding days? A wedding photographer holding a Metz 60 CT-4 handheld strobe with a Nikon

F3HP.

 

The Metz 60 is discountined because it's replaced by Metz 76 MZ-5 digital, but I don't see it often nowadays.

 

And then there was a D-lighting feature in Nikon cameras that make you wonder what is the fill flash for anyway.

 

In photography 101, we have been taught that it is always better to use natural lighting source instead of the "harsh"

flash lighting. That's why some professionals are using reflectors instead of a flash unit when shooting a model at

outdoor.

 

If money is no object, would you still be using a handheld flash? Is it necessary at a wedding?

[www.roelandebruijn.nl]

I try to avoid flash. But in harsh sunlight outside, you need fill flash. And with the wedding going into the late hours, you need flash to freeze your subject while high ISO and long shutter take care of the ambient. (dragging the shutter)

 

So yes flash is still needed, although less then in the 'olden days'.

[lex_jenkins]

If fewer photographers are using the good third party brand flash units it's because the camera brand TTL flash units are better than ever.

 

D-lighting, HDR, clever editing, high ISO's, etc., can't create light where none exists. They can't create the catch lights in the eyes that define clarity of the human expression.

 

I took Photography 101. Literally. I studied photography in school. They never taught us that natural lighting was preferable to flash. Light is light. A good photographer learns to use it, in all its forms.

 

As for "harsh" lighting being somehow inferior, well... tell that the Terry Richardson and the magazines that hire him. Somebody ain't getting the message.

 

Reflectors are useful. I use 'em. But they work only when there's some light to be reflected.

 

Hey, I like natural light as much as the next purist. I spent decades using mostly available light for my fine art and candid, documentary, etc., photography. But not because I disliked flash. I liked *good* flash photos. I just disliked fighting those older hotshoe and hammerhead flash units to get the effect I wanted. Nikon's CLS and TTL flash revolutionized my approach to people photography. It's now easy to get subtle flash effects.

 

And none of those other perfectly useful and equally valid tools - high ISO/low noise performance, D-lighting, shadow boosting, highlight checks, in-camera HDR type emulation, whatever - can, will or should eliminate skillful use of flash as a legitimate tool.

[jose_angel]

In my surroundings flash is still a must. If you look for maximum image quality, you`ll shoot at he lowest ISO and

high shutter speed to avoid shake, then even with base ISO200 cameras flash is needed. I still see many 60s and

45s with digital cameras and some 76s. I don`t remember a wedding photographer without flash. There are a few

ones who shoot without flash but only that informal, fill images, turned to b&w or sepia. The main work is always

made with flash.

[jose_angel]

I must say that I`m refering to central-south european photographers, where usually weddings are indoors, and most of the times churchs are pretty dark and badly illuminated.

[richard_driscoll]

Remember that when using daylight fill high ISO is of no help in reducing the flash power needed. The high sync

speed of modern cameras compared with the 1/60 or 1/80 of the F3 is a help however.

[elliot1]

As good as today's high ISO cameras are, lower ISO is still a better choice. Flash still enables the photographer to keep the ISO lower rather than higher and get the stunning results client's demand. Creative use of a flash can brilliantly illuminate the subject without giving the appearance a flash was used.

 

Whether indoors or outdoors, flash will always have its place when the lighting is not perfect, which, during a wedding, is much of the time..

[bill_keane2]

"And then there was a D-lighting feature in Nikon cameras that make you wonder what is the fill flash for anyway.

 

In photography 101, we have been taught that it is always better to use natural lighting source instead of the "harsh" flash lighting. That's why some professionals are using reflectors instead of a flash unit when shooting a model at outdoor."

 

I don't think D-Lighting is a replacement for what a flash can do in a back-lit portrait. And in my own view, the Nikon flash system is anything but harsh. Many times, in outdoor settings, or inside during the day, people wouldn't know that flash was used at all -- it's that good.

[bill_keane2]

I don't think D-Lighting can do this. And at this point, I wouldn't consider buying a 3rd-party flash...<div></div>

[ilkka_nissila]

To me, the use of flash has several advantages even though the <i>quantity</i> of light available is sufficient.

<p>

1. The color of flash light is different from other artificial lights. The cameras are well calibrated to handle

flash white balance and the quality of color reproduction using flash is excellent.

<p>

2. Sometimes the 1/r^2 effect with small indoor tungsten lights is just too strong; I need to provide more even

lighting. This involves relighting the space with flash. Even lighting of sufficient intensity can usually be

achieved with portable flashes with digital SLRs, whereas with the lower sensitivity of film, it may require much

more powerful flashes.

<p>

<i>I must say that I`m refering to central-south european photographers, where usually weddings are indoors, and

most of the times churchs are pretty dark and badly illuminated.</i>

<p>

Can you give us a rough idea of how dark the churches in your area are? I think here, they are typically something

like f/4, 1/200s, ISO 1600 on a bright day, though it gets a couple of stops darker on darker days. In the winter

things might be pretty bad though.

[www.roelandebruijn.nl]

Lex, I wasn't calling harsh sunlight inferior. I was poiting out that when there is harsh sunlight fill flash is necessary to create good photo's. In a wedding it is not alway practical/possible to move everybody to the shade

 

I will surely check out Terry Richardson, didn't know him yet.

[www.roelandebruijn.nl]

Have checked out Terry Richardson. What to say, though I see his professionalism, and some of his portraits are very good (love the Obama shot), his style of shooting is not my style.

 

But he had clients galore, and shot some famous people, so obviously he is doing something right.

 

Sorry for hijacking this thread, back to OP's question now.

[ilkka_nissila]

If you want harsh looking photos, using harsh light is one way to help you get there. I don't think most of Terry Richardson's photos are in good taste, but hey, it's the popular vote which decides who is successful.

 

It's certainly possible to use bright sunlight successfully (and in good taste) without fill flash. If the fill flash is direct, the result is often worse than using natural light alone, due to needle sharp catch lights and an unnatural looking lighting balance. Your mileage may vary, as it often does.

[jose_angel]

<i>"Can you give us a rough idea of how dark the churches in your area are?"</i><p>

 

It varies so much from one to another, but on a well illuminated one you cannot get more than 1/15 in the main nave! (@f4 and ISO1600 as you say on a clear day). Sometimes the bride and groom place is illuminated with ugly strong halogen bulbs with their ugly unavoidable shadows. Big, representative churchs usually have much more light than smaller neighborhood ones.

[jose_angel]

Here it is <a href="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/8096379-lg.jpg">a pro-wedding photog</a> with something a 45, don`t know if the older or current digital. (It was my POW subject weeks ago).<p>

 

Below is a very well illuminated church: there is a waiting list of more than a year to marry here, it is one of bride`s favourites.<p><div></div>

[jose_angel]

I know one of the few photogs who shot here without flash. He is so kind and funny, and very expensive.

I like very much his photos. Check that he has nothing inside a church... <a href="http://www.edwardolive.info/galleriesfotos.php">here</a>.<p>Definitely Terry is not for me.

[ilkka_nissila]

So that's a <i>very well illuminated</i> church? Wow.

<p>

Finns get married in places like in the attached picture.<div></div>

[photo5]

We always used strobes for formal portraits while shooting weddings. But you have to set it up beforehand, and usually shoot a poloroid to confirm (this was in 1999). We used natural light and a reflector when we had good window light or outside light. <P>

 

But flash is good to put that catch-light in the eyes of your subject. Also to fill in the shadows below the eyes, and even out harsh sunlight. <P>

 

<a href="http://hull534.smugmug.com/photos/350656670_GAjPx-M.jpg"><P>

 

D300 at ISO 200 with SB-800 set to iTTL mode. 1/250th at f7.1.<P>

[ty_mickan]

Whenever I hear people say "I don't like the look of flash, I'm a natural light sort of person", I immediately assume

that the photographer doesn't fully understand flash and/or hasn't taken the time to perfect it. There will always be a

place for natural light photography, but in weddings, where you cannot control the natural light or the subjects, flash

is a must for alot of situations. As Dave above says, flash has its advantages, and I would like to add that it will give

you more punch/contrast and more depth in you pics.

 

When purchasing the D3's, I didn't think that it would increase my 'natural light' quota of shots, but saw it more as an

opportunity to get more from my flash ie. greater range when bouncing the flash over my shoulder.

[sprouty]

<I>"Whenever I hear people say "I don't like the look of flash, I'm a natural light sort of person", I immediately

assume that the photographer doesn't fully understand flash and/or hasn't taken the time to perfect it."</I>

<P>

Absolutely true. The proper use of flash will add beautiful light in a way that looks completely natural.

[ilkka_nissila]

<i>The proper use of flash will add beautiful light in a way that looks completely natural.</i>

<p>

This can't always be implemented in practice, if you don't have suitable neutral surfaces to reflect from. In reality, by

adding light you're altering the scene and it'll never look in pictures like it did to the people who were there. Many people

prefer the documentary approach in which the lighting isn't altered - to preserve the original mood. If photographers wanted

to change the light, they would, of course. Working with what is there is often a lot more difficult than replacing it with

something else.

<p>

I love flash photography in the studio, but I've never been a fan of the use of flash on location. It can be done well, to enhance the images

but I feel 99.99% of the time, it's not.

[jamie bushley]

I agree with many of the above responses. Higher ISO, D-Lighting (and RAW adjustments) and built in flashes are making large flashes less necessary for the average person, but for pros shooting weddings they are really a necessity. Few people use the handle mount flashes anymore because the Canon and Nikon Flashes are quite powerful and also work with the cameras meter automatically.

 

Sure there are some people out there who shoot weddings and manage to take some great photos while never using flash, but if you look at a complete wedding, and not just their portfolio, you will see that a lot of shots are blurred, grainy or simply missing due to the limitations of ambient light. Perhaps in 10 years when we have a clean ISO 1 million we won't need flash, but even then they will still be used because you can control them to get the look you want.

 

Ambient light can look very good and window-light can give the photos a moody look, but you can always turn the flash off, or dial it down and use it as fill.If you don't have the flash you can't use it.

 

I don't know who your photo 101 teacher was but they obviously don't know what they are talking about. Sure, on camera flash from a point an shoot will give you very harsh directional lighting, but a flash with a diffuser on a bracket will give beautiful soft light, and shooting into umbrellas or softboxes on light stands will provide even softer light. If you want harsher light, there are modifiers which can make the light even harsher and more directional. As someone else said light is light, it's all about knowing what to do with it. When I was in college photo one (in a 4 year photo program, about 8 years ago) we were using the high end pro-foto studio lights by the 2nd month.

 

The only problem with flash at a wedding is that it "gives you a way." If you are trying to capture a candid moment, you better get it right the first time, because after the flash goes of it's likely they will look at you. But, if you're in a dark church or hall you wouldn't be able to get the shot any other way.

 

I always bring several spare flashes to weddings, for use off camera and as a backup. I also bring a backup connecting cord in case a guest bumps my bracket and weakens the connection. It's that important.

[chuck_t]

Yeah, thanks for the response. I sometimes still use flash to get rid of the shadow on people face. D-lighting will not help to get rid of the shadow completely. For indoor shot, it depends, but I prefer using a fill flash technique instead of full power and wash out other indoor light sources.

[sprouty]

<I>"Many people prefer the documentary approach in which the lighting isn't altered - to preserve the original

mood."</I>

<P>

Ilkka, I'm not so sure this is the case all the time, or if done correctly, even most of the time. Here are two shots,

one without flash, one with, has the original mood been altered?

<P>

<center><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3218/2863428515_b423a2c9fb.jpg?v=0"></center>

<P>

<center><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3014/3023094233_1a12e0d17e.jpg?v=0"></center>

<P>

And here is a link to a pre-wedding party and wedding a shot for a friend. Flash was used in every image, please

feel free to critque, I will not be offended if you disagree.

<P>

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/37135917@N00/sets/72157607973253253/show/">slideshow</a>

[lex_jenkins]

Sp, your friends seem to be more fun than most photographers are permitted to have. And your photos consistently capture their personalities. That's my critique and I'm sticking to it.