Do you still flash?

[Mike H]

It occurs to me that with the high quality (low noise) of images made at ISO 1600 today that it may be possible to quit using flash in many indoor situations where flash has always been the standard approach. I recently went flashless at an indoor event, and found the following advantages worth considering:

1. When trying to get candid shots, there was no flash to alert people that I was taking a picture.

2. There was no mismatch between the color of the subjects and the background lighting. The room was was lit with tungsten. Hence, in the few shots for which I did use flash the subjects were correctly colored (white looked white) while background areas were yellow from the tungsten lighting.

3. There was no need to be concerned with recycle times, battery changes, or other flash-related issues.

4. Ambient metering seems to be a little more reliable than flash metering.

5. Bracketing exposures using a high fps speed didn't turn the place into a disco (which people do tend to notice), and that would have happened with flash.

So the question is: Why use flash if you can get away from it in some indoor shooting situations? I realize that there are rooms too dark for this to work, so we shouldn't all dump our flashes, but it seems like time to re-think the tendency to reach for a flash when we head indoors.

Tell me what you think. Thanks.

Mike H

[Scottes]

Personally I find ISO 400 barely tolerable and ISO 1600 unacceptable. Noise reduction certainly helps but destroys some detail.

I'd rather use flash when I can.

[Mike H]

Personally I find ISO 400 barely tolerable and ISO 1600 unacceptable. Noise reduction certainly helps but destroys some detail.

I'd rather use flash when I can.

What camera are you using to get "barely tolerable" results at ISO 400? I can't see noise in my ISO 400 shots if the exposure is correct.

Thanks for the response.

Mike H

[Mike H]

I forgot to mention one negative item for the non-flash approach: going with room lighting alone tends to leave a slight shadow in the eyes of subjects, whereas flash tends to eliminate this.

Mike H

[Scottes]

What camera are you using to get "barely tolerable" results at ISO 400? I can't see noise in my ISO 400 shots if the exposure is correct.

10D, 20D, anything really. The noise simply *exists* therefore it is barely tolerable.

I'm finicky.


Which looks better?

http://www.itsanadventure.com/postimages/finch-compare-iso1600.jpg

1600 on the left, Neat Imaged on the right.
As I said, unacceptable.

[elbirth]

^ which camera was that? That seems like quite a bit, even for 1600 on my 20D....

[Scottes]

That was the 10D and about as perfectly exposed as possible since the histogram was a Bell curve covering left to right. It's also a 100% crop, which I didn't mention. The full thread about this image and noise removal can be found here: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=38794&highlight=1600

To me, for my shots, this is typical of what I get and the 20D is very similar. Maybe it's the smooth backgrounds that are common in my shots - the noise isn't so apparent in the bird itself since the detail hides it. But the noise is quite apparent in the solid color background and the beak. It you look closely at the larger feathers you can see noise - which I don't mind so much - but it's too messy in the background.

[Persian-Rice]

Scottes if you are properly exposing at 800-1600 the noise will be very minimal. I posted a picture taken at 400 in the nifty fifty thread and it has very very little noise.

[Scottes]

Yes, the image was properly exposed. Yet it still has open areas of midtones where noise is completely unacceptable to me. Your opinion of "very minimal" in my opinion is "unacceptable."

I have yet to see a 100% crop of an ISO 1600 image than has acceptable noise levels in open areas (ie; no details) of midtones or shadows. Since the nature of my photography often has large open areas then noise levels are very critical to me.

In the image above the feather/detail areas have noise which is not apparent and is acceptable. But the noisy background areas are not acceptable.

[Mike H]

Aside from the noise issue, are there any comments on going flashless indoors? Thanks.

Mike H

[davidwegs]

The racoon eyes.

I think it can work when you have tables with close lighting (i.e. not at the ceiling), or if you stand with a window to your back and some daylight comming in. Otherwise I don't care for it myself.

Here's a quick shot indoors with a 20D @ 1600 iso. The first is a crop and the next the original shot. No post processing.

http://www.pbase.com/davidwegs/image/35068385

[DocFrankenstein]

I agree with scottes 100%

ISO 400 is barely acceptable. I shoot with Drebel....

Granted - I didn't use any noise reduction. But you don't get the same smoothness as you would with ISO 100.

If you don't agree with me, try printing ISO 800 as 13*19 as compared to ISO 100.

You'll see BIG difference between them.

[drisley]

As posted many times before this image (http://www.mts.net/~lftbrain/iso1600crop2.jpg)was taken at ISO800 on the DREbel, and with NO noise reduction. This is a 100% crop. I dont see any noise that is unacceptable. I have many more, some even better, and some ISO1600 shots that look very similar.
Here is another 100% crop (http://www.mts.net/~lftbrain/iso800crop.jpg)of an ISO800 shot with no noise reduction. Again, I see no noise.
Even the image of the bird you posted, on the right, when printed, even at 8x10, would show little or no noise.
100% crop of the images in Photoshop really isn't considered output imho.

[elbirth]

As posted many times before this image (http://www.mts.net/~lftbrain/iso1600crop2.jpg)was taken at ISO800 on the DREbel, and with NO noise reduction. This is a 100% crop. I dont see any noise that is unacceptable. I have many more, some even better, and some ISO1600 shots that look very similar.
Here is another 100% crop (http://www.mts.net/~lftbrain/iso800crop.jpg)of an ISO800 shot with no noise reduction. Again, I see no noise.
Even the image of the bird you posted, on the right, when printed, even at 8x10, would show little or no noise.
100% crop of the images in Photoshop really isn't considered output imho.

That first link's filename says ISO 1600... so do you know which it is? If it's 1600, then that's even more awesome :shock:

[drisley]

It's ISO800.
When I first posted it a long time ago, I thought it was ISO1600, and mislabelled it. Then I got a look of the Exif. There are a bunch in that same batch that are ISO1600 and look almost as good.

If you think ISO400 on the DRebel is unnacceptable, then go back to a G3, or G6, and try ISO200.
Or better yet, go back to film! Then you will see noise!

[elbirth]

Ahh, gotcha. That's still really great looking though

[Persian-Rice]

As posted many times before this image (http://www.mts.net/~lftbrain/iso1600crop2.jpg)was taken at ISO800 on the DREbel, and with NO noise reduction. This is a 100% crop. I dont see any noise that is unacceptable. I have many more, some even better, and some ISO1600 shots that look very similar.
Here is another 100% crop (http://www.mts.net/~lftbrain/iso800crop.jpg)of an ISO800 shot with no noise reduction. Again, I see no noise.
Even the image of the bird you posted, on the right, when printed, even at 8x10, would show little or no noise.
100% crop of the images in Photoshop really isn't considered output imho.

I think it's just that some people are a little more umm, eherm eherm, more tightly puckered then others hahaha.

The fact is, if you understand where noise comes from, you will realize that some noise, no matter what ISO rating you use, is going to show up.
Whether if it's unacceptable or not is really a matter opinion and nothing else. By the looks of things, some of you guys find any noise whatsoever unacceptable. The 20D doesn't particularly perform that well under lower ISO, so at this point in time you have to give somewhere to gain somewhere else.

Doc your comment makes no sence, of course ISO 800 is going to be unacceptable compared to an image at ISO 100, thats is the whole point. But the reality is, that if you don't compare it to ISO 100, the noise is not that big of an issue. What you are asking for is there to be no noise across the entire board, that ain't going to happen.

Its like driving an M5 all your life and then hopping into an Accord, the Accord will be unacceptable, but the reality is that the Accord is still pretty darn good.

Cheers.

[Scottes]

As posted many times before this image (http://www.mts.net/~lftbrain/iso1600crop2.jpg)was taken at ISO800 on the DREbel, and with NO noise reduction.

If you look at the letters behind his knees there's an awful lot of noise and it looks terrible to me. Now imagine a shot where 70% of the image has areas like that. That's what my ISO 800 shots look like, beause that's the nature of my photography.

That shot does look great overall because of the nature of the shot. Noise doesn't show so much in the blacks or white, just the midrange, and the detail of his body means that the noise isn't apparent there. This shot is perfect for showing how good ISO 800 *can* be, but not how ISO 800 *is*.

It has nothing to do with being anal, it has to do with the nature of the shot. Shooting 400mm f/5.6 means that many of my shots will have a blur of midtones behind the subject, and noise is very apparent in that situation. If I shot where the bg was a clearly defined background of trees or grass then the noise wouldn't be apparent because the detail would hide it. But I don't.

[chris.bailey]

Anyone going to have a go at the original posters question :lol: (Agree with you by the way Scottes, mid range solid backgrounds will nearly always need some noise reduction)

To my mind it depends a lot on what type of shot you are trying to get and where you are shooting. Some high ISO low ambient light shots can look very flat where a bit of well metered flash would make them pop a bit more. The big difference I have noticed between the 10D and the MkII is how much better the latter deals with on-camera flash metering with the result I am now tending to use it with flash in preference to stepping up the ISO. Am also going to the gym :shock:

[Mike H]

Anyone going to have a go at the original posters question :lol: (Agree with you by the way Scottes, mid range solid backgrounds will nearly always need some noise reduction)

To my mind it depends a lot on what type of shot you are trying to get and where you are shooting. Some high ISO low ambient light shots can look very flat where a bit of well metered flash would make them pop a bit more. The big difference I have noticed between the 10D and the MkII is how much better the latter deals with on-camera flash metering with the result I am now tending to use it with flash in preference to stepping up the ISO. Am also going to the gym :shock:

Thanks for the post! And I agree about the gym, though as I was hoping I notice the weight of the 1D Mark II less and less as I continue to use it. It's definitely worth the effort.

I'm also finding the flash metering to be better than the 10D's flash metering.

Mike H

[Scottes]

Anyone going to have a go at the original posters question :lol:

:D
OK, I've done enough noise-babbling so I'll take a stab, though I'm not so experienced so these are my *thoughts* and not necessarily facts.


1) Excellent point. The flash can not only identify you but can also be quite disturbing to others, making you more noticable and possibly disliked. "Candid" portraits of people showing photographer-hatred aren't so good. :)

2) Excellent point. This is huge.

3) Good point, but it depends on the event I think. If you *need* faster recharge time you could get a battery pack. If you're stuck in low-lighting where you *need* fast frame rates (relatively speaking) then flash is not an option. The question is not relative to the events where you don't need fast frame rates. The middle ground might make for a mix - higher (ISO 400) with manual flash for fill.

4) I think this will come with experience, but it's certainly dis-heartening until then.

5) Related to #3, IMHO.

6) ("slight shadow in the eyes") - This is also huge, IMHO. But just a touch of fill flash can do wonders, and such a low flash won't really affect recharge time so badly, nor should it change foreground/background color temp so much.

My additions:

1) Another thing that flash can do would be to isolate and accentuate the subject, when possible. Leaving the background dark while exposing a foreground subject can be helpful and artistic.

2) Subjects too close to a wall will create unwanted and inappropriate shadows - inappropriate since the shadow won't match the room lighting and will be obvious as flash. Correcting this issue with the use of diffusers/softboxes makes flash recharge longer and can be unweildy.

My conclusion: If you can handle the noise (had to throw that in), do noise-removal, or simply plan low-noise shots (best bet) then I would leave the flash on the camera for emergencies, but try not to use it. But then even using it can be a bother, since you'll want to reduce ISO probably, switch the flash back on, and confirm exposure until you build experience.

Going without flash is certainly lighter with less equipment to carry, but ultimately more expensive since those nice f/1.8 or even f/2.8 lens cost more money.