[MJSfoto1956]

I just don't like what it does. Liking pictures taken with flash is an acquired taste. But then so is looking at pictures and understanding what the represent.

Oh PLEASE! One of these images is done with flash, the other, natural light. Which is which? (and the idea is that the photographer decides when to use the tool as needed or as appropriate.)





Michael

[normhead]

I could have taken ether with natural light, so what does it matter? The issue is the bottom has some rather harsh shadows, that could be either natural light or flash... I also usually don't like direct sunlight on small subjects. So once again, it's your preference...

That's how preferences work. You like flash because you find image like that presentable. I've spent enough time with building custom light boxes, to understand lighting. It's just more of a challenge and often more pleasing and natural looking to explore natural light at least for me. After a semester of work in the studio learning to make things look natural, I really began to value the opportunities presented by natural light.

Working in the studio is like writing a novel. It's an invented environment.
Working with natural light is like writing a biography. It's a description of a natural environment, frozen in time.

[ffking]

Working in the studio is like writing a novel. It's an invented environment.
Working with natural light is like writing a biography. It's a description of a natural environment, frozen in time.

I like that

[btnapa]

Oh PLEASE! One of these images is done with flash, the other, natural light. Which is which? (and the idea is that the photographer decides when to use the tool as needed or as appropriate.)





Michael

Wow. Michael, you have done it my friend. These are fantastic shots. I use natural light as much as I can because I find it difficult to make flash shots look natural. After so many years of photography and playing with lights of all sorts, I cannot tell which is which. Well done and beautiful shots worthy of a gallery. BTW, which one is the studio shot? I am getting ready to do a series of images in a studio environment. I would like to make them look as natural as your shots.

---------- Post added 02-27-16 at 05:29 AM ----------

Working in the studio is like writing a novel. It's an invented environment.
Working with natural light is like writing a biography. It's a description of a natural environment, frozen in time.

Well said. You are a philosopher my friend. Your analogy is so right on. I really, really like this. Based on your quote, I am a biographer who is also writing novels. Biography is my passion and novels pay the bills!! I am liking creative novels more and more these days

---

Last edited by btnapa; 02-27-2016 at 06:50 AM. Reason: more text

[bxf]

I could have taken ether with natural light, so what does it matter? The issue is the bottom has some rather harsh shadows, that could be either natural light or flash... I also usually don't like direct sunlight on small subjects. So once again, it's your preference...

I agree that flash is often unflattering, but I saw these two images, and I said to myself "beautiful". As an "end user" I really don't give a flying hockey puck whether or not flash was used. Could these two particular subjects have been captured better? I have no idea, but to my eyes they are great as is, and the same question could be applied to just about any image. As far as I'M concerned, these are proof that the use of flash should not be dismissed automatically.

[normhead]

Well said. You are a philosopher my friend. Your analogy is so right on. I really, really like this. Based on your quote, I am a biographer who is also writing novels. Biography is my passion and novels pay the bills!! I am liking creative novels more and more these days

To carry on the analogy, there's no reason one can't do both, there's no reason someone can't do one or the other, but, choosing to do one and not the other is a choice. As I said, after a semester working with artificial light, I just made a conscious decision not to do that. It was work, and didn't bring me any particular satisfaction that would have been compensation for the effort.

Others may find working with artificial light both enjoyable and creative. It's not a moral issue. No one is better, no one is worse.

The fact that you may not be able to tell which is which, makes absolutely no difference to whether or not you enjoy the process involved. If anything the fact that you can get similar results either way, just emphasizes how much personal preference it is for most of us. If I was doing product photography, I'd be using a studio set and artificial light. But, I don't do product photography. again, out of choice.

[Sliver-Surfer]

To carry on the analogy, there's no reason one can't do both, there's no reason someone can't do one or the other, but, choosing to do one and not the other is a choice. As I said, after a semester working with artificial light, I just made a conscious decision not to do that. It was work, and didn't bring me any particular satisfaction that would have been compensation for the effort.

Others may find working with artificial light both enjoyable and creative. It's not a moral issue. No one is better, no one is worse.

The fact that you may not be able to tell which is which, makes absolutely no difference to whether or not you enjoy the process involved. If anything the fact that you can get similar results either way, just emphasizes how much personal preference it is for most of us. If I was doing product photography, I'd be using a studio set and artificial light. But, I don't do product photography. again, out of choice.

A bit of a backpedal from

I abhor flash and consider it a methods of last resort, after everything else has failed

[BrianR]

I just don't like what it does. Liking pictures taken with flash is an acquired taste. But then so is looking at pictures and understanding what the represent.

I could have taken ether with natural light, so what does it matter?

You take people to task for similar statements all the time Norm (aps-c vs FF, or your lens tests). If you can't tell the difference then "I just don't like what it does. Liking pictures taken with flash is an acquired taste," doesn't make sense.

Not liking the process of using flashes or not finding it worth it to what it would add to your photography is 100% a personal decision and one I can completely respect. Especially when it comes from someone who has taken the time to understand artificial lighting as you have. But in the hands of the skilled you won't be able to tell the difference if that's their goal.

Process vs result. Not liking the process for yourself isn't the same as not liking the end result, and I think it's worth separating the two carefully so as not to discourage people from looking into artificial lighting - I think we both agree that even a hard core natural light enthusiast should take some time during their photographic journey to understand what can be done with artificial light. If nothing else, it will help them read, find, or just appreciate the natural stuff even more.

Does if you use power level instead of pttl

You still need the subject to sit still from exposure to exposure.

[normhead]

You take people to task for similar statements all the time Norm (aps-c vs FF, or your lens tests). If you can't tell the difference then "I just don't like what it does. Liking pictures taken with flash is an acquired taste," doesn't make sense.

Not liking the process of using flashes or not finding it worth it to what it would add to your photography is 100% a personal decision and one I can completely respect. Especially when it comes from someone who has taken the time to understand artificial lighting as you have. But in the hands of the skilled you won't be able to tell the difference if that's their goal.

Process vs result. Not liking the process for yourself isn't the same as not liking the end result, and I think it's worth separating the two carefully so as not to discourage people from looking into artificial lighting - I think we both agree that even a hard core natural light enthusiast should take some time during their photographic journey to understand what can be done with artificial light. If nothing else, it will help them read, find, or just appreciate the natural stuff even more.



You still need the subject to sit still from exposure to exposure.

Let's talk about something other than me... I know, I'm interesting as hell, but I am me, i get tired of talking or even thinking about me.

[Sliver-Surfer]

You still need the subject to sit still from exposure to exposure.

This was is in reference to a quote about Pixel Shift on k3 ii where no movement is implied

[BrianR]

This was is in reference to a quote about Pixel Shift on k3 ii where no movement is implied

I had thought it was in reference to this:

...Really? that is completely counterintuitive, as flash is one of the best ways to freeze motion.

But flash doesn't help in keeping four successive shots identical to each other, which PS demands!

Which is absolutely correct.

Oh, I think I see. Dave L's post was in the context of freezing motion. Yours was in the context of keeping the exposures identical?

[normhead]

A bit of a backpedal from

One person's back pedal is another person's elaboration and defining of terms. I still abhor flash and avoid it at all costs where's the back pedal? As noted above. I'm not sure why it has become a game to try and catch norm head in some kind of intellectual paradox. But both of you guys seem to enjoy playing that game.

I should refer you to my Asian studies teacher, recognized as the world's third leading expert in Asian Erotic Art, to paraphrase " I am not constrained by the limitations of logical consistency. I'm trying to explain something that may or may not follow the rules of some kind of logic." Everything I say is trying to explain something, logical or not. Nit picking at how I express it doesn't help you understand what I'm saying. IN fact,it probably hinders you. There comes a time when you tow are going to need to get to figuring out "what is he saying" instead of "that doesn't make sense." IN the experience of artistic expression, nothing is under any constraints that mean they have to be either logical or make sense. IN fact, that is a constraint that limits the type of knowledge being discussed.

For people with similar not caught up on the logic... one person can say. " I hate fushclingerer flashes", and the other can know exactly what they mean. Because on one level that completely describes the situation. That other scan't learn a darn thing from a statement like that because they are caught up in some kind of internal validation process, doesn't mean others can't benefit. We can't all tailor our conversation styles to meet the requirements of the anal few, without becoming totally anal ourselves. Some of us who were brought up in academic household, surrounded by theoretical concepts and discussions of concepts that go way beyond the realm of normal comprehension, have experienced the limitations of supposedly rational thought. Sometimes it's better to just say/ "That's really stinky fart", than to break it down into a chemical analysis done in objective, comparisons of the way the olfactory organs perceive and react to certain chemical compounds.

But I digress.

You guys constantly ask me to explain things, other people just "get".

All I'm saying here, is it's OK to like flash, it's also OK to hate it. The fact that you like cameras in no way implies you have any inclination at all to use flash. Both choices are acceptable. And making up your mind flash isn't something you want to incorporate into your photography without spending a lot of time exploring artificial lighting is also quite acceptable. Most of us do what interests us. There is no basic list of things you have to do, besides pick up a camera and exploring what makes you happy.

And figuring out exactly why you don't like flash as a pre-requisite for posting on the forum, it just doesn't exist. You can intuitively know these things without giving it a lot of thought. Sometimes you just want today what you think. You guys just got nailed this time because I know why I think what i think. many just don't bother taking the time to do that. Figuring stuff like that out is really only of interest to teachers. Most people just know what they know and that's it.

[Sliver-Surfer]

I had thought it was in reference to this:



Which is absolutely correct.

Oh, I think I see. Dave L's post was in the context of freezing motion. Yours was in the context of keeping the exposures identical?

Correct I think it would be helpful with pixel shift if that option were there for stills.

[BrianR]

Correct I think it would be helpful with pixel shift if that option were there for stills.

Agreed!

I'm starting to think this may be impossible with the way the electronic shutter works on a CMOS sensor, at least not without a HSS flash. They use a "rolling shutter" where it reads data off the sensor line by line. This would run into the same problems a mechanical shutter has above the rated sync speed. Possibly even worse- most of what I've been able to find indicate that the 'rolling' bit is moving slower than a typical mechanical shutter which would make it even less likely to catch a part of the flash illumination that's even across the frame during the entire readout process. By contrast, some of the super flash-syncing cameras used CCD's that were controllable by a global electronic shutter that starts and kills the exposure for the entire sensor at once rather than line by line.

I'd be happy for any enlightenment on the matter

[Dave L]

Oh, I think I see. Dave L's post was in the context of freezing motion. Yours was in the context of keeping the exposures identical?

No, it wasn't (see below).

Does if you use power level instead of pttl

My point is that any movement from shot to shot within the PS image sequence will spoil the pixel shift improvement, whether you use lights, flash or available light. Flash in that respect is no different as long as you can get a fast enough shutter speed without it to stop blur on each of the PS images.