On Camera Flash

nickdancona

nickdancona

Messages
109
Name
Nick
Edit My Images
Yes
I was at a wedding a couple of weeks ago as a guest and was closely observing the photographer at work - as one does :)

It was a bright sunny day and the photographer was shooting with his on camera flash pointed directly at his subjects. I have on occasion shot this way myself but I find it results in flat images and specular catch lights. Not sure I would shoot an entire wedding reception this way, what are your thoughts?
 
nickdancona said:
It was a bright sunny day
Click to expand...
Hi Nick,
that statement alone may justify the strategy. The bride
possibly all in white, the option is to open shadows and
to create specular catch lights since she maybe has her
back to the Sun.

The way out of the flatness is to play the ratio between
the two light sources.
nickdancona said:
Not sure I would shoot an entire wedding reception this way
Click to expand...
Again, if this time the reception is outside but in the shade,
the strategy remains the same but the ratio will change as
the light conditions have changed.

Of course, there are many ways to do the job and finally
it comes to one thing: — predictability for the togger as all
his workflow will depend on it.
 
Last edited:
I arrived at around 11:00 a.m., so it was pretty much overhead sun for most of the reception. There was not much shade either.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not bashing this guys technique but just trying to learn from it.
 
nickdancona said:
Don't get me wrong, I'm not bashing this guys technique but just trying to learn from it.
Click to expand...


I don't think I got you wrong here, Nick, :cool: I am just
explaining his choice of strategy and the ratio play to
ultimately take that choice to successful end.

Others may have chosen other strategies but his was
not a bad one!



 
Last edited:
nickdancona said:
Would you trust TTL
Click to expand...


I will trust the TTL of the pro flashes I use, totally.
Keep in mind that even in TTL mode, the output
may be tweaked up or down —this is where the
ratio come in play— so one is still having control
of everything and can work faster with a reliable
flash on TTL.



 
Last edited:
nickdancona said:
Would you trust TTL for this method or would TTL throw out too much light and make the images too flashy?
Click to expand...

I was replying before I saw this

TTL as in auto you mean, yep, but again it's either dialed right down for just a shadow lift or its at full to make the flash really an obvious part of the photo. Its not wrong but not popular

Dave
 
nickdancona said:
I arrived at around 11:00 a.m., so it was pretty much overhead sun for most of the reception. There was not much shade either.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not bashing this guys technique but just trying to learn from it.
Click to expand...
In overhead sun flash is used so the eyes can be seen otherwise the eyes are in strong shade.
 
DG Phototraining said:
The idea I guess is to lift shadow areas, but its not something I do as I find its too unnatural looking for my tastes

Back in the film only days it was very common to see the tog shooting flash at virtually every shot (those that I saw/attended anyway)

Dave
Click to expand...
Is there some relevance to the mentioning of film as aposed to digital? or is it that the film boys knew what they were doing and the digital kids nowadays don't?
 
shapeshifter said:
Is there some relevance to the mentioning of film as aposed to digital? or is it that the film boys knew what they were doing and the digital kids nowadays don't?
Click to expand...
I'm guessing ... but I assume because in the film days we were talking ISO 64/100; maybe ISO200 or perhaps ISO400 at an extreme ... while today with digital 1600 or even 3200 is quite acceptable and with image stabilisation in many situations a lower shutter speed can be got away with.
 
shapeshifter said:
film boys knew what they were doing and the digital kids nowadays don't?
Click to expand...


Pro "film boys" knew what hat they were doing as retouche
were fastidious and expensive.

Working digital is no excuse to be ignorant and or negligent
but, granted, it has tons more latitude to correct misjudged
ratios and other mishaps!
 
Last edited:
I often use my pop-up flash on TTL, turned down between two and four stops depending on the lighting, to lift dark shadows in people's faces, and also in flower portraits, when the sunlight is hard and bright. Turned down like that it never results in shots which look as though flash had been used, it's just a mild shadow lifter which brings shadow detail back into the dynamic range which will work on a print without getting into the extra noise (or noise reduction artefact) problems which shadow lifting in post processing (or in-camera via jpeg settings) can result in. There's a lot of superstitious fear in photography about using features which look horrid when misused by the kind of people who're scared of reading a camera manual.

Here's an example of a full power TTL pop-up flash portrait which doesn't look flashed. It was taken at night in a very dim candle lit pub. I used the shiny reflective inside of a crisp packet to bounce the light from the pop-up off the ceiling.

Bounced pop up flash portrait by Chris Malcolm, on Flickr

Flash, including on camera flash and the much maligned pop-up, is just a tool. Like a hammer it's very useful when used appropriately.
 
Eloise said:
today with digital 1600 or even 3200 is quite acceptable
Click to expand...


These are not to be considered in sunny noon
light conditions,
 
nickdancona said:
I guess we need to see the photographers results.
Click to expand...



Great wisdom there Nick, since the is the only
way to appreciate his choice of strategy! :cool:
 
Eloise said:
I'm guessing ... but I assume because in the film days we were talking ISO 64/100; maybe ISO200 or perhaps ISO400 at an extreme ... while today with digital 1600 or even 3200 is quite acceptable and with image stabilisation in many situations a lower shutter speed can be got away with.
Click to expand...

Not really likely to be using ISOs that high in midday sun are we - which is the point of the thread

Dave
 
One can dial in flash power from negligible to full
The results mimic fill in lighting
For weddings it seems to be da gerr
 
mrtoad said:
For weddings it seems to be da gerr
Click to expand...

Except that I don't know ANYONE who does it these days


Eloise said:
True... colour me embarrassed for not following the thread completely...
Click to expand...

Rosy red cheeks it is

I'd be smug, but I'm often guilty of that too lol

Dave
 
Here's the thing about lighting... getting the light off camera doesn't matter much unless you get it waaay off camera. And using a larger modifier doesn't make much difference unless it is muuuch larger/closer. If you're not able to do either of those, you might just as well use on camera flash.

(with the flash on camera you can still move it farther away and make it larger by bouncing it in some situations)
 
DG Phototraining said:
Except that I don't know ANYONE who does it these days

Dave
Click to expand...

do yo mean anyone who is anyone or no one at all...both are not complete assessments old chap
i will get some names for you...my next door neighbour for instance...( he also has two tripods..:rolleyes:)
its not a taboo surely
cheers
geof
:)
 
Last edited:
DG Phototraining said:
Except that I don't know ANYONE who does it these days
Dave
Click to expand...

:mad:

my apologies Dave...i got it wrong...i thought on the camera flash meant one in the hotshoe... and not the little built in toy...
my photographer and film maker next door slapped my wrist tonight and told me to wise up..he explained the directional use of flash and that the light source directly from the lens axis was not a good thing...
he uses...a flash fired by wi fi...so he can put it anywhere...that is why he has two tripods...

:oops: :$:oops: :$

cheers
geof
 
mrtoad said:
.i thought on the camera flash meant one in the hotshoe... and not the little built in toy...
Click to expand...


Me too!
The little toy never came to my mind… :banghead:
 
mrtoad said:
:mad:

my apologies Dave...i got it wrong...i thought on the camera flash meant one in the hotshoe... and not the little built in toy...
my photographer and film maker next door slapped my wrist tonight and told me to wise up..he explained the directional use of flash and that the light source directly from the lens axis was not a good thing...
Click to expand...
A direct flash from close to the lens axis is not a good thing, which is waht happens with an on-camera direct flash, whereas a direct flash from exactly on the lens axis, which is what is achieved by on-camera ring flashes, is sufficiently of a good thing that special gear is made to achieve this, such as the small ring flashes for macro photography and the larger softer ring flashes made for portrait work. The idea of a ring flash is that the lens pokes though a hole in the middle of the light source.

If a direct flash, i.e. a small bright light source, is close to the lens axis, it throws small hard dark ugly shadows slightly to one side of any protrusion, such as a nose against a face, a chin against a neck, or a head against a background. It also creates fierce ugly highlights on anything slightly shiny and perpendicular to the lens axis. Whereas if the light source is evenly distributed all round the lens axis, as it is in a ring flash, no shadows at all are thrown, and the highlights are more diffuse. Small low powered ring flashes are used for macro photography, and bigger more diffuse ones are one of the many special lighting effects which portrait photographers sometimes use.
 
On-camera flash is too vague a term really. It covers everything from the built-in pop-up unit, to a separate on-camera gun used either direct or bounced - with vastly differing results.

FWIW, I quite often use the pop-up or a small gun for direct fill-in flash. The big advantage is it's really quick and easy, and in the right situation (ie back-lit) it can turn a rubbish snap into a really rather good one. The key is not to overdo it - less is more - and if it's obvious that flash has been used, then it's probably too strong.

Bounced on-camera flash has huge potential, really only limited by your own imagination - the flashgun may be on-camera, but the light comes from off-camera. Check out Neil van Neikerk's famous Black Foamie Thing, that costs pennies but can produce really fabulous light in the right location.
http://neilvn.com/tangents/about/black-foamie-thing/
 
Last edited:
HoppyUK said:
On-camera flash is too vague a term really. It covers everything from the built-in pop-up unit, to a separate on-camera gun used either direct or bounced - with vastly differing results.

FWIW, I quite often use the pop-up or a small gun for direct fill-in flash. The big advantage is it's really quick and easy, and in the right situation (ie back-lit) it can turn a rubbish snap into a really rather good one. The key is not to overdo it - less is more - and if it's obvious that flash has been used, then it's probably too strong.

Bounced on-camera flash has huge potential, really only limited by your own imagination - the flashgun may be on-camera, but the light comes from off-camera. Check out Neil van Neikerk's famous Black Foamie Thing, that costs pennies but can produce really fabulous light in the right location.
http://neilvn.com/tangents/about/black-foamie-thing/
Click to expand...

Well!!
The English lagwage scores again..one term for many things
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top