[heliphoto]

Mike, your flash work here is inspiring - no doubt about it. It looks like you're gonna have to write a tutorial about how it's done. The coolest thing here is that you're using basic old flashes which I assume were nothing near the cost of a 540 or the like and I assume you're using Takumars too right?

[stevebrot]

Some of are just too cheap to invest in lighting!

Steve

(Actually prefers the look of available light when enough is present...)

[stevebrot]

...If I hadn't just shown you how I did it, I sincerely doubt you would have ever guessed flash was used on that photo. I took it seated on the ground and with the camera bumping up against the umbrella.

Great results with a fairly basic setup. I would never have guessed it to be a flash shot. I am curious about the support setup. Is this something fairly standard?

Steve

[Lowell Goudge]

Similar to the expression "Guns don't kill people; people with guns kill people" we can say "Flash doesn't ruin pictures; people who don't know what they're doing with flash ruin pictures."

Mike

maybe we are taking the wrong apprpach

according to available - definition of available by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

available means "Present and ready for use; at hand; accessible:" therefore if you have your flash with you, it is also available light

isn't it

[Mike Cash]

Mike, your flash work here is inspiring - no doubt about it. It looks like you're gonna have to write a tutorial about how it's done. The coolest thing here is that you're using basic old flashes which I assume were nothing near the cost of a 540 or the like and I assume you're using Takumars too right?

That is correct. Just a $10 AF200T flash and a $10 SMC Takumar 55/1.8 (the kit lens from the early 70s) for all the photos posted in this thread, except for the girl getting her makeup done. That was done with a $30 AF280T on the camera and ceiling bounced. I believe the lens on that one was a Tamron 28-75/2.8 that I picked up used for $230. I needed autofocus and zoom for that event and bought it specifically for that purpose. Ordinarily I do all my strobist style flash shooting with Takumars.

I made a Flickr set (Low Budget Flash) specifically dedicated to disproving the notion that flash (on-camera or off-camera) has to be expensive.

Flash photography has in common with available light photography the fact that the basics of it are not at all complicated or hard to learn and that the creative potential is pretty much limited only by the photographer's own imagination and willingness to practice and learn.

I will never try to drag kicking and screaming into the world of flash anyone who just does not care for it. We all have the perfect right to practice our love of photography in any way we damned well please and I fully support anyone not using flash of any type for any personal reasons they may have. But when I see objections to flash based on misconceptions about its capabilities I do try to dispel the misconceptions with some examples. I hate for anyone to make a decision on something based on incomplete or faulty information.

What I have never understood, though, is that very often when someone expresses an interest in learning something about flash there will be flash haters who can't resist the urge to chime in with a tone of superiority about being an available light photographer and attempting to dissuade the person from exploring flash. There are things in the world I have not the slightest interest in trying for myself but I would never attempt to hold anyone else back from trying them.

A tutorial about the basics of flash needn't be long or complicated. Let me see if I can present a few points here:

1. On-camera direct flash sucks, as a general rule. And pop-up flash sucks pretty much universally. The results from those two are largely responsible for the poor opinion some people have of flash photography, and understandably so if that is all they are basing their opinions on. It results in a flat and unnatural appearance, often with harsh and distracting shadows.

2. Flash looks better when bounced and/or diffused. Bouncing brings the light in from a different angle and produces softer, more natural, and less objectionable shadows. Diffusers produce softer shadows by making the light source larger.

3. Getting the flash source away from the camera provides the best results and is preferable when the situation allows for it.

4. There are cheap alternatives (PC cord, etc) for firing off-camera flashes, so one doesn't necessarily have to have a modern flash with built-in wireless capability. I'm sure they're very nice, but I don't have the money for one.

5. With flash the primary component to exposure is aperture. Except for when balancing ambient light with flash, the shutter speed is pretty much irrelevant. If you're overpowering ambient light, then the duration of the flash effectively becomes your shutter speed.

6. The distance between your flash and your subject determines your aperture. The distance between the camera and your subject is irrelevant. For example, if your off-camera flash is giving you f5.6 of light on your subject it doesn't matter if you are 1 meter or 10 meters from your subject. You still shoot at f5.6.

Hence this shot taken very near the subject while standing right next to the stage:

and this shot taken from the back of the hall:

use exactly the same settings on the camera with no adjustment required between shots. (The flashes were set to hit center stage during the performance, which is why the wings look dimmer).

7. The Inverse Square Law (light hitting the subject quarters as the distance doubles) allows for creative use of light fall-off when the light source is very near the subject. In effect, if the light is just right at 50cm it will be two stops underexposed at 1 meter. If it is just right at 25cm it will be two stops underexposed at 50cm and four stops underexposed at 1 meter.

In an indoor situation, where the flash isn't competing with strong ambient light (sunlight) the Inverse Square Law can be used for the counterintuitive application of adding light to make a scene darker

In such uses, one can choose to include more of the background by using a slower shutter speed than the maximum synch speed to allow ambient light into the photo:

Or by using a weaker flash setting and thereby a wider aperture, as was done in the second photo. As you can see from the setup shot, both were taken in daylight. (The second one used an umbrella, while the first one was direct flash; notice the difference in the shadow thrown by the hands).

So, you see, there is nothing especially complicated about the basics of using either on-camera or off-camera flash. It's a nice skill to have and something fun to play around with for a change of pace. And the equipment doesn't have to be either expensive or bulky. 100% of the flash equipment I used for the event photography you see in the above linked Flickr set fits into two bags. One is the bag that came with my one-and-only el cheapo $40 7 foot light stand and the other is a $10 fanny pack I picked up from a bargain bin:

You don't even necessarily have to have a tripod or a light stand. This photo was done with the flash held at arm's length in my left hand:

And this one was taken with the flash held aloft mounted on an extended monopod:

[Mike Cash]

Great results with a fairly basic setup. I would never have guessed it to be a flash shot. I am curious about the support setup. Is this something fairly standard?

Steve

Are you referring to the tripod? I used that because I was also using an umbrella for some shots and there was a sporadic light breeze. My light stand has a narrower footprint and tips over too easily in those conditions, so I used the tripod instead.

Another alternative would have been to put the camera on the tripod, use the self-timer to fire the shutter, and handhold the flash instead. Or to have somebody else hold the flash for me.

I have an idea I hope to try out sometime. I want to mount a flash on a monopod, set to Auto, and work a festival or some such event with a partner. I would direct the flash holder around to cover a subject, indicate whether I wanted it high or low or whatever, and use a radio trigger to fire it. Completely mobile two-man off-camera flash photography. The results might not be so great but I think it would be fun to try it.

[Furtivito]

I'm mostly an available light guy, because, frankly, I'm not sure I know how to use flash correctly. In my film-shooting days, I used flash as fill in high-contrast situations. I would not be averse to using flash, but I think I need to study and learn how to use it correctly.

[pdo]

I shoot mostly models now and I use studio strobe inside or out. I think alot of people here misunderstand what the OP's talking about here is Lighting and not about on camera flash. It takes alot of skill to learn to see the light and how to light your subject. You can balance ambiant and flash and most people here wouldn't be able to tell if it's lit by flash or ambient light.

There's a reason why Annie Liebowitz uses strobe. Checkout the link and see if it looks flashed to you

http://strobist.blogspot.com/2009/01/annie-and-sean-connery-for-louis.html

[Ratmagiclady]

Well, there's another reason to be an 'available light' shooter... If it's the quality of the light that attracts you to a subject or scene in the first place. A lot of lighting control might not suit everyone's whole approach to things.

I'd say I have a really strong preference for available light and not messing with things too much. (Of course it's easy to say that after going so long without two reflectors to rub together. ) I usually tend to consider flash a pragmatic necessity for some jobs, and try to keep *that* to a minimum. (Big on slow-synch, here, I often just like a little splash of fill, and that at a minimum, if situations require/ permit, and my ideal for portrait work is usually to *find* a setting which has interesting light and just adding a bit in the right place.)

[kacansas03]

I think they are genuine. I am new to digital photography but I find some of the same rules as film apply. If your lens is fast then you do not need flash if you know how to adjust the white balance for the available light which with film was not really an issue. In using flash on my K100D I have found that it is fine for closer subject but if I am taking a whole room shot I have difficulty adjusting the AF200?? flash for correct exposure. However the body flash works fine for this application. I have since learned that I have the wrong generation of shoe mount flash for the camera. So now I save my pennies and get that correct one. But I spent money on fast lenses First so I can take indoor shots without flash as well as outdoor in available light. I do find a need for flash but I also like the image to look just like it did to my eyes! I find that is more likely to be the case without flash.
When I use film I use a fill flash TTL unit which does a fine job when used as a bounce flash. Very natural looking. It communicates to the body to set just the right amount even when bouncing the flash. SO I will seek a bounce for the K100 and learn how to use it well.

[dadipentak]

An analogy: I fish but don't use a boat. Sure, it limits me sometimes but it saves me a lot of time, effort and money. It also forces me to pay close attention to available opportunities. The KISS principle works for me.

[ChrisPlatt]

I really admire those who know all the ins and outs of flash photography and can use it effectively.
But it's very complicated and requires far more gear, planning and setup time than I'm interested in using.

FWIW I do use daylight fill flash, but only with my Hexar AF film camera (non-SLR) which makes it simple and foolproof.
Despite many technical innovations, even the most modern focal plane shutter cameras are not daylight-fill friendly.

Chris

[Canada_Rockies]

I prefer the look of available light to flash whenever possible, but am not against the use of flash under all circumstances. I chose [genuine].

[dadipentak]

I have no beef with flash per se but, judging from some of what I've seen (that is, a lot of bad flash photos), doing it well takes a lot of skill.

It also requires gear (read, "weight and cost") as well as gear fiddling and calculation which--unlike many photographers--I really don't enjoy.

Call it the KISS principle or call me lazy: it's like my decision not to have a boat I can't car-top.

And I do enjoy the challenges and surprises of exploring the dynamics of light in the physical world with a camera.

[junyo]

I have an idea I hope to try out sometime. I want to mount a flash on a monopod, set to Auto, and work a festival or some such event with a partner. I would direct the flash holder around to cover a subject, indicate whether I wanted it high or low or whatever, and use a radio trigger to fire it. Completely mobile two-man off-camera flash photography. The results might not be so great but I think it would be fun to try it.

David Hobby calls that a V.A.L. - Voice Activated Lightstand