I hate flash. Is raising ISO bad?

[riz]

<p>I really dont like flash, in built or external, it makes flat and unnatural. I raised the ISO and it all looked very improved.</p>

<p>My question is what is the remarkable difference in ISO 100 and 800? Raising the ISO to that extent deteriorates the quality?</p>

<p>What other improvements do you suggest?</p>

<p>Regards,</p>

<p>Riz</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>When you say "external" flash, that doesn't really help. Are you talking about flash pointed directly at someone, or flash bounced off a ceiling or other surface? Are you talking about using flash without a strategy that balances it nicely with the ambient light, including correcting it for color temperature using the appropriate filters ... are are you talking about using flash set on an automatic mode, with the camera in an automatic mode, and just seeing what happens? <br /><br />On-camera flash is a tool. But you have to take control to get the look you want. You can also use all of the great new technology we have to get that flash <em>off the camera</em> (if bouncing it won't work), so that you're not getting that dead-ahead fill look. These days, this is now a completely trivial thing to do.<br /><br />But to answer your other question: the difference between ISO 100 and ISO 800 depends entirely on the camera you're using. For some cameras, that's the difference between a shot that looks great and one that has lost much of its detail, contrast, and tonality. For other cameras, the difference is barely noticeable. Regardless, it's not always the solution anyway. Being able to crank up the ISO doesn't change the fact that ambient light might still be causing dark shadows over someone's eyes, or otherwise making for an unflattering look that a <em>well controlled</em> flash can easily remedy.<br /><br />I would concentrate on practicing with your flash in more subtle ways. Take control of the exposure and the flash power manually, and learn to introduce just enough to help, and not so much that it robs from the quality of the. Look at how to use bouncing (from surfaces behind you, above you, next to you) so that you can add to the ambient light rather than washing out the ambient light.<br /><br />You can get some far more specific pointers if you mention what equipment you're using.</p>

[riz]

<p>Thanks Matt. I was referring built-in flash. And yes that's more-or-less pointing directly at the subject.</p>

[tommyinca]

<p>If it is a DSLR (with large sensor), the difference are in small dynamic range and signal to noise ratio. In lay-person's term, hardly any (or look really close) difference :-)</p>

<p>If it is on most point and shoot digicam, ISO 800 = watery image, from hardly any to hardly useable. </p>

[Matt Laur]

Rizwan: ok, so my comments still stand. Even with a built-in pop-up flash, you can take manual control of the exposure

and the flash power to greatly reduce that unpleasant look. As for the appropriateness of using a high ISO ... that depends

on the camera, and on how the image will be used. Small web only display? Completely different considerations then

when making large prints. A point and shoot camera, compared to a D700? Very different priorities. So, still need to know

more about what you're using and how the image files are used.

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>Flash light can be extremely beautiful when properly used. You need either to bounce it (read Neil van Niekerk's site for an abundance of examples of on-camera flash (not built-in!) as portrait light) or use modifiers like umbrellas or soft boxes. Read up on the literature on lighting and you should get a better hang of using flash.</p>

<p>High ISO is not bad but it's not an alternative to flash. In fact I often combine high ISO (800-1600) with bounced flash (I bounce it upwards and towards the ceiling and walls behind my back) and wide apertures (f/1.4-f/2) to get a natural feeling light in the whole room while opening up the shadows on people's faces with the flash light. </p>

<p>More info in e.g. Joe McNally's books (Hot Shoe Diaries etc.) and blog, strobist.com, and Neil's site mentioned in my first paragraph. Also, of course there is an abundance of paper books on the subject of lighting but they're usually more oriented on studio lighting.</p>

[paul_k1664875007]

<p>Built in flash directly pointed at the subject never is beautiful, and yes makes things flat and harsh</p>

<p>Off camera flash though is quite another thing, although it needs to be learned to apply properly. Basically all studio photography is done with off camera flash, and even the small remote control flashes like in e.g. the Nikon CLS system can give similar results, although setting up things may prove a bit of work.</p>

<p>Going from ISO 100 to ISO 800 may or may not give lesser IQ, depending of the camera and lenses used. I myself have done a lot of catwalk lately with a D3, and high ISO IQ (up to ISO 6400) is by far superior to that of my D2X (max 800ISO, and that is already taking risks). And with nowadays consumer orientated model camera's very good high ISO results can also easily be achieved.</p>

<p>On the other hand, coming from the Tri-X/Acufine era, I love grain, and in monochrome the D2X in Hi-1 gives me the kind of results I love to remember from former days.</p>

<p>Please take into account also that working with availible light will put extra demands on your lenses. IQ of a varizoom with max open aperture of e.g. f4 is usually not in the neighbourhood of a fixed 1.8/85 stopped down to f4, although with such a lens leaving it fullt open of only slightly stopped down will problably already give very nice IQ.</p>

<p>So IMHO it's up to the photographer to make the choice: (built-in) flash is easy and fast, although possibly with lesser IQ, off camera flash or availible light might give superior results but will demand more from the photographer and his equipment.</p>

[mendel_leisk]

<p>If you want informed responses let people know your camera make/model: image deterioration at higher ISO varies greatly. Also, you can determine for yourself by simply doing a few test shots and comparing.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Rizwan, I agree with you 100% about direct, on-camera flash, whether it's the built-in flash or a shoe-mount flash. Direct flash is ugly. However, off-camera flash can be a very good thing.</p>

<p>You can pick up a radio slave off of Ebay and a cheap manual flash (e.g. Vivitar 285hv) and position the flash somewhere in a room to throw you some extra light. Sometimes that will make all the difference.</p>

<p>But in general I agree with you. I love natural light. When dim light is an issue, I often crank my ISO rather high (800 or 1600 even on my 40D), with the anticipation that I will be doing the image in B&W (where chromic noise doesn't matter). After doing my contrast manipulations (often with construction of broad shoulders and toes) and grayscale conversion, I then apply a "salt and pepper" filter to kill the "pixels gone wrong" scattered throughout the image. The result is something that has somewhat of a Tri-X feel to it. I didn't like Tri-X back in the film days, but that look is growing on me a bit, as I've had to adapt my methods to changes in my subject matter.</p>

<p><img src="http://www.graphic-fusion.com/phblacksmith02sm.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>(Natural light in a very dark room, 5D, 24-105 at 80, ISO 1600, f/4, 1/40 sec, sigmoidal contrast)</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>Direct flash is ugly.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Is this ugly? Direct, on-camera flash. Let me know...</p><center>

<p><img src="http://www.spirer.com/saintsmar2010/content/bin/images/large/IMG_9765.jpg" alt="" width="521" height="694" /><br>

<em>Ruby Ruin</em></p></center>

<p>It's all about mastering the tools instead of letting the tools master you.</p>

[GerrySiegel]

<p>Did someone write that flash is<em> also</em> <strong>available light</strong>. I like it a lot when I need it. I guess I can remember when color film was 25, then 64, then 100. "Push processing" did work, but then gave that <em>too high ISO</em> look. Repeat this mantra. Flash is good. Flash is never inherently ugly. Ergo, I am on Jeff and Matt's page . Learn how to use it skillfully and give yourself one more lighting tool. When you need it. Why not.</p>

[dan_south]

<p>Check out what Dave Black and Joe McNally do with flash. You might just become a believer.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<blockquote>

<p>Is this ugly? Direct, on-camera flash. Let me know...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Jeff, yes. The performer is very attractive, but I think the photographer could have done better with the lighting. There are reflections and harsh shadows in your photo I frankly do not like. I'm not saying it's a bad photo. It's quite well done, but I think it would be better with off-camera flash. Just my opinion. You obviously feel differently. My opinion, BTW, is not derived from ignorance of the tools or how to use them. That implication of yours is quite arrogant.</p>

[john_elder1]

<p>I no longer use the word never in photography. Everytime I do, somebody shows me an example the contradicts my opinion. Direct on camera flash has to be used with care to be successful, but it can be as evidenced by Jeff's nice shot. Also At twilight, you can use on camera flash successfully by dragging the shutter to balance the on camera flash with the ambient light with the effect that a non- photographer doesn't notice the flash. Fill flash in bright sunlight is another technique where on camera flash can be used effectively. Don't be so quick with your conclusions. As soon as you say it is ugly or you can't do it, an example will contradict your opinion.</p>

[john_elder1]

<p>For Sarah Fox, there are very few photographs in existence that could not have been done better.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>John, point taken. However, I really, really do not like the reflections and harsh shadows created by direct, on-shoe flash, even when it's used as light fill. I just don't. My intent was not to criticize Jeff's photo. It's a good one, to be sure. However, Jeff demanded an opinion/answer of me (very rudely, I might add), and so I gave it. I would otherwise not presume to criticize his work.</p>

<p>I'll add that the OP's question was whether 800 ISO is bad, not whether flash is good. He has his own opinions, similar to mine. I tried to offer a moderating perspective re flash, but tried to address his main question head-on: Given that he hates flash, is ISO 800 bad? I.e. can it be done well? I offered my perspectives on how that might be done, and he can try out the techniques I suggested if he is interested.</p>

[steve_wagner1]

<blockquote>

<p>I really dont like flash, in built or external, it makes flat and unnatural.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>There's a lot more to the picture than that. Bounce flash, diffuse flash, fill flash etc. Definitely doesn't need to be flat or unnatural. Just need to learn how to use it.</p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>I find fill flash to sometimes be the lesser of two evils. It is useful for balancing subject and background, it is useful to avoid racoon eyes it can be useful to stop motion and can be useful in mixed lighting.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Well, I agree with y'all somewhat, but not entirely. Fill flash is a good tool, but it's the directness of on-shoe flash that I feel is ugly. Once the flash is strong enough to do something useful, one starts to see ugly sheens on faces, harsh specular highlights, harsh shadows, and so forth. These defects don't glare at you if the fill is light, of course, but they're objectionable nevertheless, at least to me. </p>

<p>However, pull the flash off the camera and put it well off to the side, perhaps with a modifier to soften it, and it can look very good. To illustrate, here's a photo of mine with fairly strong off-shoe fill from a single 550EX. I don't think the light looks unnatural, flat, or dimensionless:</p>

<p><img src="http://www.graphic-fusion.com/phuncertaintysm.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Riz, take a natural light photo with the sun to your back, and it will look every bit as ugly as with a flash mounted atop the camera and directed straight towards the subject. Different light sources, but same bad light direction. There's nothing really ugly about xenon flash. It's a very good quality of light, second only to sunlight. It's only ugly when it comes from a bad direction or is of the wrong softness/hardness/apparent size.</p>

<p>FAIW, I've enjoyed following the strobist blog. (Google it.) My lighting techniques are a bit different from his, but with broad overlap. I had developed them over the years and picked up several new ideas from reading the blog. There are lighting styles there I also don't like -- derived from objectives I feel are misguided. However, there's a lot one can learn there. It's worth going through all the exercises and practicing the techniques. Even a master photographer like Jeff Spirer can learn a few things there, e.g. that there's more to fill than dragging the shutter and popping off a little shoe-mount flash.</p>

[leicaglow]

<p>I wish I had an image available on this computer, but I cut out a translucent film canister (I think Fuji), and make a slot to fit over my Nikon's pop up flash. It diffuses the light so much that it is very difficult to tell it is taken with a flash.</p>

<p>I might also recommend you look into people who call themselves "strobists". They do some amazing work, and it's really about experimenting and seeing what kind of images you can get from a strobe. Sort of embracing the tool, rather than running from it. You can start by looking at "strobist.com" which takes you to a blog site, and look at the many groups on Flickr.</p>

[alvinyap]

<p>*shakes head*.<br>

Just on Sunday I was at a hawk conservancy shooting static birds, a supposed "pro" came over to us and proclaimed how flash will remove all feather detail etc etc. We just smiled :)</p>

<p>Learn the tools, on camera direct flash can be of great use, so long as you learn how to control it.</p>

<p>To answer your question: When I shoot gigs I have a tendency to not use flash - because I am concerned about disturbing the patrons. In such cases, I raise my iso all the way to hi1 (iso6400 equiv) <em>in order to get the exposure I want</em>. The artists I shoot for are only using it for web, or their covers, leaflets. Don't need uber high res quality for that. Determine your final output, and then adjust your quality output to match that. I'm using a D300 at such events btw. Even on my D200 I shoot up to 1600, 8x12 prints look fine.</p>

<p>Also: Am not a professional. So ymmv.</p>

<p>Alvin</p><div></div>

[robert_k1]

<p>As many have mentioned, one can only get optimal results when one knows how to get the *most* out of a piece of equipment. Not mentioned in the thread, and equally important, is what kind of shot and what is the result for. Choosing the right equipment for the right shot and result is just as important.</p>

<p>Carrying a flash around is an extra burden, and draws attention (with a bracket is even more so). Firing a flash definitely draws attention, and not often allowed. Without a good battery pack (yet another burden), waiting for the flash to charge up can mean missing shots. For some situations, these are problems, and for some other they are not. As I said, it all depends.</p>

<p>I have never learned to use flash proficiently, and only use it sparingly for outdoor fill flash. When I have to use it indoors, I expect the result to be passable but nothing special. So I longed for the high ISO possible on the dslrs, but have been very disappointed by my D200 for ISO over 200. I would appreciate Alvin to further comment on how he achieved this:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Even on my D200 I shoot up to 1600, 8x12 prints look fine.</p>

</blockquote>

[lindsay_ramstetter]

<p>Flash is great when used properly. I have a Fong diffuser for my external flash. You can also dial down the power on an external flash as well as a pop up flash. You get light without "headlight beams" of light. </p>

[szrimaging]

<p>400 tops as the ISO for a D200 at 8x12, IMHO.</p>

<p>Sarah Fox, I am guessing, also doesn't like ring lights. Whether or not one likes flash directly from the front is personal preference, just like 90% of the rest of photography.</p>

<p>And Alvin, quick constructive tip, although you may already know it. Try using a hard flash from behind right up when shooting texture. If that command made any sense. Power it down below your main flash and it should bring out more texture of those feathers. That is, if you could do so, if not, I wouldn't say you did a bad job.</p>

<p>And to the OP, try softening the light from the front using a modifier, much like some wedding photogs do. It gives you a very different look than the bare, hard flash does.</p>