Shel, I would say that we are in violent agreement then. There are certainly reasons to use flash, but what Boris was shooting was severely affected by the flash. My first choice is to not use flash, but when the situation warrants it, I use it. The shots Boris showed were not the right situation.
Bruce Friday, January 23, 2004, 7:59:14 PM, you wrote: SB> Bruce ... SB> Weddings are a different type of photography, Paul's product shots are different, SB> too. What Boris was trying to do, and what I was addressing, is different. In SB> such situations, and in such type of photography, flash is definitely a detriment. SB> All the "naturalness" goes out of the photograph. SB> Weddings are planned events, photographs MUST be produced, product shots are SB> controlled events ... photos in pool halls, bars, and on the street just happen ... SB> unless they have been set up, and that brings us back to photography being like SB> weddings and product shots. I don't want my people to look like a product, and I SB> certainly don't want them to feel that way. People at weddings expect flash; a SB> lady quietly nursing her drink at the Hotsy Totsy club is gonna be really fried SB> when that blast of light startles her, and I'll be a very sad photographer for SB> being thrown out of the bar for disturbing the patrons. SB> shel SB> Bruce Dayton wrote: >> Then there is all those times when the wedding is at noon and pictures >> are right before or after. Some of them can use fill flash - even in >> the shade - to put a tiny catchlight in the eyes or to soften a harsh >> shadow. Of course, receptions tend to be quite dim. There are shots >> there that are required to take and without supplemntal (flash) >> lighting, there would be some very unhappy clients. >> >> I agree that whenever possible, don't use flash and don't over do it, >> but I have need for flash.
