Thanks for all the advice, Bruce.
I have to admit that a good part of the resistance I have to taking up
flash photography is pure laziness. Aside from the fact that I don't
have an inkling as to what the photo is going to look like when I decide
to use it, I do find the technical aspects of it a little intimidating.
In my mind, in introduces a degree of unpredictability into the shot,
and when the results are bad, I'm utterly clueless as to what I need to
do to make it right. It really is an almost binary problem for me: It
either worked, or it didn't work. So it's kind of an exercise in flying
blind, and more often than not, hitting the mountainside.
A continuous light source would be a much better option for me, simply
because I have absolutely no idea what a shot using flash will look like
when I trip the shutter. I guess the only way to remedy that would be to
spend a lot of time shooting exclusively with flash, just to familiarize
myself with it. But, know that intellectually is a different thing from
putting it into practice, as my default inclination is always to try and
get the shot with available light and I'm just in the habit of forgoing
anything that would require flash. In fact, it's almost as though shots
that require flash don't even register with me. That is, unless the
subject itself is so compelling (like LeeAnn's figure, for example) that
I want to get a shot of it even if it means I'm going to have to use the
pop-up flash in order to get it. And even then, I'm going to try several
times to see if I can get it without using flash.
What I really need is to take a course in practical flash photography
with a very rudimentary focus on the science and technical aspects --
just enough to lend a little predictability. As it stands, the only
thing I can predict when using flash is that the flash will go off. If I
can just learn the very basics of herding photons, I'd be a lot more
comfortable using it. As it is, I'm completely mystified by it and
wonder how anyone ever manages to get predictable results -- especially
when using multiple remote flash units. (E.g., http://is.gd/7z3psm )
But, I am surprised at how cheap the LED panels and other continuous
light sources are. If I start getting more models willing to pose for
me, I'll certainly look into that.
Thanks again!
-- Walt
On 2/11/2013 5:58 PM, Bruce Walker wrote:
Walt, points to consider:
Like shooting from a tripod, adding in some artificial light can force
you to slow down and consider your shots -- not actually a bad thing.
Flash is not the only way to get extra light onto human subjects.
There are: light bounced from reflectors, incandescent or halogen
bulbs, LED panels, fluorescents, etc. If flash is intimidating because
of its transient nature, then continuous light is very easy to work
with and very familiar to you. They can be used with modifiers too.
Eg: I put LED panels into softboxes and umbrellas. A 160-LED panel and
a lightstand will cost you $50 these days at eBay or Amazon.
A little bit of extra light added to a scene can lift your image from
"it's okay" to "oh wow". If your scene is lit by uniform flat light,
you can get a perfectly okay shot. But your eyes are drawn to lighter
areas or more contrasty areas, so if you take that flat shot and light
your subject's face by a half stop or more, you'll see how much better
it can become. Light becomes a part of the composition that you get to
control.
In the past I considered flash to be either unnecessary, too complex,
too expensive, or just annoying -- until I actually tried it, first
with one hotshoe flash then two and three. The very first time I tried
working in a studio, despite stumbling around like a complete noob, I
absolutely loved it. I took to it right away and saw how it opened up
a world of new possibilities.
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 3:58 PM, Walt <ldott...@gmail.com> wrote:
Thank you, Ann. :)
One of these days, I'm going to invest in a decent flash. I just have a hard
time justifying the expense considering how much I dislike using it.
It's something I'll eventually have to get over, I guess. But, I've always
preferred shooting in available light and generally lose interest in
shooting when flash is required.
-- Walt
On 2/11/2013 1:45 PM, Ann Sanfedele wrote:
The flash shot looks fine...
steady on, Walt :-)
ann
On 2/11/2013 03:59, Walt wrote:
So, my latest favorite subject returned tonight for a visit. I asked her
about whether or not she'd be interested in posing for me -- perhaps in
some motorcycle (ahem, Larry!) shots. Let's just say, after discussing
the last photo I took of her, she's amenable; I daresay enthusiastic.
I couldn't let her get away without taking another shot tonight.
Unfortunately, the light was crappy, so I used flash. Here are the
results:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/walt_gilbert/8463612961/
K-5, FA 50/1.4, 1/100 sec, ISO 3200
I didn't think to pull back the ISO before the shot, but it turned out
remarkably well in spite of my oversight, I think.
I think I'm really going to enjoy working with this girl (and the K-5).
-- Walt
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
follow the directions.
--
-bmw
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
