Effective Flash Usage?

[Becki_D]

Hope this is the right place for this post. :oops: I have generally been unhappy with the results I've gotten when using my canon flash on ettl. I've found that to properly (to my liking) expose an image I had to dial in FEC but risked hot spots and/or shadows. After reading numerous articles and posts I decided to give manual flash settings a try during a reception this past weekend. I had my flash on 1/4 power, bouncing above and over my shoulder about 45 degrees off a white tent.
I was discussing these images with a photographer friend of mine and she felt the darker images was a much better use of flash and the lighter of these images utilized too much flash and was obviously fake lighting (not something I'm after). I felt the lighter image exposed the eyes better, was less harsh, ie wrinkle under the chin and in face.
Both of these photos are cropped versions straight out of camera, I'm not interested in composition comments, only comments about utilizing flash better.
Totally honest comments are most appreciated. I am working hard to nail down the use of on camera flash.

[TheHoff]

I think both look fine in the lighting. You're right in your assessment of the wrinkles and one being kinder to her than the other but that may be hard to judge given the different expressions in each shot. If #2 was your natural light to work with, you'd question the need for flash at all, but I can see your reasoning.

To me, neither look "better" just different depending on your priorities. I don't see the fake look in #1; there are no harsh highlights, you kept the lens open wide for limited DOF, and there aren't distinct flash shadows.

[Becki_D]

Thanks Hoff. But these shots were taken at night under a tent with minimal light from Chinese lanterns and some stage lights. The comments made about image #1 were that I blew out the ambient light and that it was obviously done with flash. I personally liked #1 so I am confused. ARG!

[arrgeebee]

I disagree with the comment of #1 being over exposed. I think the lighting looks very natural. The 2 very different expressions are more to blame in the differences in the pictures. That's my opinion anyway. From a pure lighting perspective, I've be happy with either one as neither looks obviously like they utilized flash.

[Becki_D]

Thanks Bob. I guess it comes down to personal preferences. I did what I set out to do while using flash that evening, no harsh shadows and no hot spots. When my friend tried to educate me as to why she felt #1 was amateur I started wondering what I was missing.
Thanks for having a look.

[acchildress]

I guess I still got a lot to learn because I think they look Great.

Some people just gotta put their thumb print on everything whether or not that makes it better.

[TheHoff]

lol... ^^^ very accurate re: thumb print. I think he was picking nits with #1 but maybe our standards are too low. I think it looks like a well done blend of bounced flash and ambient.

[Apshiso]

Right on Hoff.

I think they are both "correct" exposures. It just comes down to your preference. I think your friend was off base to call #1 amateurish but then again - I guess that is her opinion and you know what they say about those...

[cdifoto]

Thanks Bob. I guess it comes down to personal preferences. I did what I set out to do while using flash that evening, no harsh shadows and no hot spots. When my friend tried to educate me as to why she felt #1 was amateur I started wondering what I was missing.
Thanks for having a look.
I'd say she's missing some marbles. She probably thinks underexposed = natural and bright = fake.

Both of those shots are excellent use of flash, in my opinion.

[milorad]

I agree with cdifoto above... but I will say one thing...

the photo on the left looks like it was taken at daytime (afternoon at latest) but the second one definitely looks like it was taken in the evening.

I suppose, if your intent is to accurately convey the time of day, I would err on the side of shot #2... otherwise, they are both excellent use of flash indeed, it's only your intent which needs to be considered.

[PhotosGuy]

Those look pretty good to me. Maybe she was using a non-color managed browser to view them? Page 3: History of Color Mis-Management: Read about "Color Stupid"
http://regex.info/blog/photo-tech/color-spaces-page3/

Firefox 3 "Enable Color Management" Trick. (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=561719) I wish that all these browsers would get on the same page someday.

But if "I have generally been unhappy with the results I've gotten when using my canon flash on ettl." really bothers you, try using it on manual. Testing seems to be a lost art when people can just ask questions. ;)
See post #3
Tips for Xmas Ball Please (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=419399)

[Walczak Photo]

Thanks Hoff. But these shots were taken at night under a tent with minimal light from Chinese lanterns and some stage lights. The comments made about image #1 were that I blew out the ambient light and that it was obviously done with flash. I personally liked #1 so I am confused. ARG!

I'm going to jump in here with my $.02 worth. I could be quite wrong here, but I'm guessing the person you showed these too was at this event as well to have known what the actual lighting conditions were? To me it sounds as though his gripe is that the lighting in these shots doesn't reflect the actual lighting conditions of the shoot. In other words, if you were shooting a stage performer for example under colored lighting and you used a flash, you'd loose the effect of the colored lighting and as such would look as if flash were used.

Now that said, I think how good or bad the flash on these shots looks really depends on what you were after. If a person didn't know about the Chinese lanterns, they might think these were shot without any flash at all in some other kind of event. When I had first looked at that first shot (before I actually read your post), my initial reaction was that it was a good, evenly lit shot taken of someone in a crowd at an outdoor event (maybe on an overcast day since there aren't many shadows). So from that stand point, then I'd say the shot was quite successful. If however you wanted the shot to reflect the color and ambiance of the available lighting...typically speaking, it's hard to get that while using flash anyways and honestly a really fast lens and no flash at all probably would have worked better (such is used for stage lighting as mentioned above).

Now as to which shot works better...here I have to agree with Hoff completely. Strictly in regards to the lighting, I think #2 is actually better...there's a very nice quality to the light there. However #1 is a much more flattering shot due to the pose. Aside from the lines around the mouth, in the second shot this was taken from the other side of the woman's face where her hair wasn't covering the wrinkles around her eyes (which are even more prominent because of the huge smile she has here as well...same smile that caused the lines around the chin). In other words, with the second shot it's not the lighting that was unflattering, it was simply the pose and the angle at which the image was shot.

Lastly I think the appeal with the first shot isn't that the lighting is better, again it's simply a more flattering pose. At the risk of getting a little philosophical here, I think it might be a bit of a vanity thing. Most people of our Western Culture tend to think that women (also of our Western culture) tend to look "older" when their wrinkles and lines are more prominent. In men for example, at least in regards to photography, it's often considered as nice texture to see an older man with a face like this, but for a woman it's just not seen the same way. That said, again the lighting in #2 is better, it's just not really the best pose.

Ok...again just my $.02 worth!
Jim