advertisement


General Photography Thread

Cav said:
Then you are not using it correctly. It is but another technique that can be learnt...
Click to expand...

nice selective quoting to make a nasty point. i also said i don't like it in anyone else's pictures. the technique is straightforward and i can use a flash if i want, i just don't care for it.

it seems i'm not the only one here with such a view.

cliff.

those first two links you posted are to pretty awful pictures. the third link i have to say has a few excellent shots, for the genre, of course.

vuk.

p.s. in case it has to be said, i never use zoom lenses either. same goes for autofocus or in-camera metering.
 
Although to be fair Vuk if you used a bit of fill we would get to see both breasts :)
 
I dunno. If you guys took the same approach to sex as you appear to with flash, you'd never get any! eg, 'I tried it once and I didn't do too well with it'... as Cliff points out, it's a technique that can be learned.

I've seen one from Mousey's series before, and I think they're excellent. But still, I don't like the harsh shadow under her left arm, and the over-bright reflection in the eye. But I realise you couldn't take the pic any other way.
Click to expand...
Oh, I dunno - what about a bigger flash with a snoot for continuation of that tight wash, off-camera left? A quick shot with the flash hand-held at arms length, shooting with one-hand. That would address the areas you mention. Use your imagination! Or a pocket diffuser over the on-camera flash made from a 35mm film cannister, and possibly some extra flash power dialled in? not critiquing Mousey's shot (which is a beauty); offering guybat some food for thought.
 
Rico said:
y! eg, 'I tried it once and I didn't do too well with it'...
Click to expand...

rico.

that is not what anyone here is saying. i've tried it plenty of times, i've seen it in many photos and i don't like it. same thing with ilford delta films.

the fact that cliff thinks those sites/pictures he linked to are artistically "successful" simply demonstrates that he and i have very different tastes and criteria. do i know how to take pictures like that? yes. do i want to. NO!

vuk.
 
505223066_e1bf7b67d6.jpg


here's something I lashed up one lunchtime in the car at a very windy beach, shooting one-handed with SB600 and diffuser. Not perfect; try getting that with available light and a reflector. I'd like to try and perfect it.

shutter priority, 1/250, 18mm. IIRC, I had it running trailing-edge flash, which was a mistake.

This one's not about beautiful fill flash and preserving shadows, BTW.
 
rico.

the fact that your picture looks like a cheap digital montage to me just proves the point even further. if you like that sort of thing, fine.

to me, light has to makes sense! even bloody painters 400 years ago understood this.

vuk.
 
Vuk, that's the point of my "I'd like to perfect this" comment - so it doesn't look like a cheap digital montage.

We are clearly not going to agree on this - you stick with your 400 year old studio lighting, I'll make and control mine when the image demands it, and will not be constrained by rules from 50 years ago.

405648474_99581c883e.jpg
 
rico.

if you wish to ignore the spirit of what i am saying, there is no point in continuing the conversation.

vuk.
 
vuk said:
the fact that cliff thinks those sites/pictures he linked to are artistically "successful" simply demonstrates that he and i have very different tastes and criteria. do i know how to take pictures like that? yes. do i want to. NO!

vuk.
Click to expand...

Actually I picked them using a simple google search. Whether you like the pictures is down to you. I do think the following ones were pretty good though:

fill2.jpg


flash-bike-side.jpg


By the way, earlier you claimed you had used flash once, and now you are claiming to know how to do all the techniques linked. Must have been one hell of a one shot.
 
Vuk, I don't need to ignore what you are saying; I understand it and simply choose not to live in the dark any longer. I spent my first 10-12 years photographing without flash; another 4-5 years with full-manual bounce flash in some situations, and then re-entered the *dark ages* when that flash broke, for approx another 14-15 years.

If I wanted to be faithful to the lighting approaches of the old masters, I'd be using a pallatte and canvas as well. instead I am an amatuer photographer in the early 21st century with a much greater choice of techniques and equipment at my disposal, and enjoy the variety this offers in my approach to any shot I conceive. I see no need to eschew certain techniques simply because *most* folk deploy them in a way that makes them look yechh.

FWIW, Cliff neither of those two examples you've linked above are very well executed IMHO, and probably serve to illustrate what folk don't like about flash in general.
 
vuk said:
i did like that shot on the bike and said so above, though there is something a little kitschy/montage about it. as for having used flash once, what i meant it that, since experimenting and not liking the effects, i have only used it one time in a photo--one of the pics in this quartet...
Click to expand...

I agree entirely. In most if not all of the pictures linked there has been this other-worldly / fake / unnatural quality that on occasion works (e.g. Mousey's stuff, the skateboarding pics Cliff linked), but I find most flash pictures kitsch (in a bad way) and just plain wrong, but I do with most staged studio light shots too (I'm no fan of Newton for instance). I think it's due to the world having just the one sun. I can see the point of flash in situations where the picture must be got, e.g. reporting etc, but if I had to use flash I suspect I would only use it in B&W.

Tony.

PS no disrespect intended to Rico's gull, a stunning picture regardless of somewhat odd-looking light. Id be interested to see it flattened to B&W and sympathetically curved.
 
Surely flash is just a tool and the effect you get depends on how much control you have over the light it produces. I must admit that I've rarely used fill-in flash but have certainly used flash as the main light many times. Sometimes more obviously than others
321658909_3aef3f592d.jpg
Kevin

408925586_ad8f3f426a.jpg

Terry Gilliam
 
This thread about flash is both interesting and, I find, a little bizarre. I understand that many people might not like the results commonly associated with flash photography but I can't help but feel it's a little small-minded to dismiss *all* the possibilities it offers. It's merely a source of light - to me it's worth having the option just to explore and try something different occasionally.

Looking through my Flickr stream I found 2 photos that use flash (out of 200). 1%. Not a lot but significantly more than 0%. What I am convinced of though is that neither could have been taken without flash.

They're not the best photos I've ever taken (in particular the second I basically botched) but I'm still glad I took them. In summary I believe flash photography has its place.






andy
www.flickr.com/photos/uberfunkster

p.s. I like your shot as-is but perhaps that's because as an ex-animator I don't hold reality to be the ultimate yardstick (as an aside I feel that a lot of animation tries too hard to look 'real' and thus misses a lot of the potential of the medium but that's another topic entirely...)
 
I've been using Peak for E6 - good prices & quick service
Would recommend them - wouldn't know about prints though
 
Vuk,

Those shutter lags are almost as short as an M6's, which matters for some types of photography-- sports, obviously, but also for HC-B decisive-moment stuff. It's a shame that the fastest D-SLRs are also big, heavy and anything but unobtrusive.

Joe
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top