When is fill flash bad?

[pilsburypie]

Since getting my 580exii some 2 months ago, i've become an addict. Bouncing, filling - hell I might as well have it welded to my camera. Need to ween myself off it a bit.

When is an outdoor shot with people in not helped by a bit of fill? When is it best to have no flash? Answers may help to curb my over enthusiastic approach. I was amazed when I first got it how much pop it could add, but I now feel my shots can get a bit "samey"

[Benji]

"Fill" flash is fast becoming the number one photographic term thrown around by every GWC who has read his owners manual. To them it means any time the flash is turned on outside. It can be at full power and override the ambient light and to them it is fill flash. Fill flash is used when the existing lighting is good, but the shadows need "filled" in, hence the term fill flash. I have posted an image below showing what the existing light looked like before I used fill flash and then after. Note the image does not look like I used a flash of any kind, all the fill flash did was lightly fill in the shadows. The shadow cast by the main light (ambient daylight) is still there.

Benji

[pilsburypie]

Your not helping! I want examples when fill flash is bad! You are just fuelling my addiction:confused:

[Player9]

I can't see that it is ever "bad." Fill flash reduces contrast, and, in most cases, you want to reduce contrast -- especially with digital. If you later decide that you want more contrast, you can always add the contrast back in during post processing on the computer.

As noted by another poster, some folks don't understand what "fill" is. Fill flash is not the elimination of shadows, just lightening of them. If you eliminated the shadows completely, you have flat lighting which isn't very interesting.

[Wilt]

Bad = overdone, IMHO.
Bad = overexposed

when the subject no longer appears to be naturally lit, that is 'overdone'. when it is obvious that an artificial source was used in the outdoors, that is 'overdone'.

[Kent Clark]

I think Benji's pictures help answer your question. More even lighting from a flash gives a flatter look, which his second head shot illustrates. I think his first picture has more depth and looks more natural against his background; the shadows aren't excessive, they don't obscure detail. Shadows are variable, even light from a flash much less so. So in my opinion his photos illustrate when flash is not necessarily bad but when it creates the sameness you talk about in your photos.

[Curtis N]

Fill flash is bad when you have good light and the flash makes it worse. For one thing, it can create ugly shadows when the background is close.

Here's a thread with examples:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=750517

[OneStrobe]

It's bad when you want shadows :P

[Wilt]

It's bad when you want shadows :P

...and it overfills the shadows rather than merely reducing contrast somewhat.

[Wilt]

Gee, it has been hard to find example of good and bad fill flash in one place; usually I see too much fill, even when the shot is properly exposed and not blown out with fill! But I think I managed to find one series of shots...

http://photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/00GFuJ,

scroll down about half way and find the message from
Kari Douma - Grand Rapids, Michigan , May 04, 2006; 08:24 a.m.

The first photo is 'too much', the third photo is 'too little', the middle photo is 'just right'! Unfortunately, since the lighting is backlit, there is not a good example of contrast reduction fill, this is merely full face fill.

[Curtis N]

Gee, it has been hard to find example of good and bad fill flash in one place; usually I see too much fill, even when the shot is properly exposed and not blown out with fill! But I think I managed to find one series of shots...

http://photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/00GFuJ,That's a pretty good thread, Wilt. About a third of the way down there's a shot of a bride & bridesmaids on a beach, backlit by the sun and front lit with flash. The caption under the photo is Key: Not Fill:

He was referring to the fact that in a backlit situation, your flash needs to provide most of the light on the subject and it therefore becomes the key light.

I'm not gonna argue over terminology. Ya'll can call it what you want. But the point made was that you need different amounts of flash (different FEC settings) in different situations. It takes a long time to grasp this, let alone master it.

[Wilt]

That's a pretty good thread, Wilt. About a third of the way down there's a shot of a bride & bridesmaids on a beach, backlit by the sun and front lit with flash. The caption under the photo is Key: Not Fill:

He was referring to the fact that in a backlit situation, your flash needs to provide most of the light on the subject and it therefore becomes the key light.

I'm not gonna argue over terminology. Ya'll can call it what you want. But the point made was that you need different amounts of flash (different FEC settings) in different situations. It takes a long time to grasp this, let alone master it.

bw!^^^

[Wilt]

And the shot by Bill Clark - Minnetonka Minnesota , Apr 13, 2006; 09:08 a.m.
about 1/3 down this thread is fill perfection! There is nothing that gives away the supplememtal nature of the light apart from the catchlight!


http://photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/00Fr5k

I just found a quote I love, "Fill light is like a condiment, to be added with discretion." Excessive fill flattens modelling. It should be used to illuminate shadows to reveal detail, without losing the modelling of the main light source. The application of fill flash should actually be no different than the function of Fill (vs. Main) in studio lighting, unless the flash becomes the Main source such as the full backlit shadow-drowned face.

[Wilt]

Good fill flash...

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=8629587&postcount=15
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=5087240&postcount=4

And really bad fill flash (second of two shots)...

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=6955270&postcount=1

Overdone fill flash...

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1589765&postcount=4
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=8080372&postcount=1

[Curtis N]

Good fill flash...

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=8629587&postcount=15
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=5087240&postcount=4

And really bad fill flash (second of two shots)...

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=6955270&postcount=1

Overdone fill flash...

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1589765&postcount=4
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=8080372&postcount=1I just clicked on the "really bad" and the "overdone" links, just to make sure they weren't mine.
;)

[bohdank]

So did I :-)

[Jon Foster]

Me too. I've been working on my flash techniques for a couple of months now.

Jon.

[Wilt]

I just clicked on the "really bad" and the "overdone" links, just to make sure they weren't mine.
;)


No I wouldn't embarrass one of POTN's finest like that! ;)

In fact, the less than terrific ones I made sure were accompanied by the poster's own complaint of disatisfaction whenever possible!

[RPCrowe]

Overdone fill flash...

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=8080372&postcount=1 (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=8080372&postcount=1)

Actually the flash was not as much a culprit as the total overexposure. This shot is certainly recoverable with a bit of editing. Here it is with the overall brightness reduced considerably and the contrast bumped up a touch.

[Wilt]

Actually the flash was not as much a culprit as the total overexposure. This shot is certainly recoverable with a bit of editing. Here it is with the overall brightness reduced considerably and the contrast bumped up a touch.

No disputing your statement about recoverability...nevertheless the overexposure was the result of an inappropriately high FEC setting, a result of bad fill flash technique resulting in something falling off the edge of the histogram probably.

[Curtis N]

Actually the flash was not as much a culprit as the total overexposure. This shot is certainly recoverable with a bit of editing.I disagree. I think the background was exposed correctly, so by correcting the overexposed subject, the background was left too dark. There's plenty of room for differing opinion here.

Overall, your fix improved the image. Lord knows I do the same thing on a regular basis with my own shots when the flash doesn't behave as I predicted. But the best output is attained when the right balance between ambient and flash is successfully executed.

[george m w]

In the latest issue of photovison, Kirk Voklain explains his version of using fill flash outdoors, and it mostly comes down to shooting in Av, and dialing the flash minus one and a third FEC. His results are very good.

Edit: I should point out that he does whatever is necessary to get the overall scene correct first, with a reflector or scrim, then is using the on camera flash as mentioned dialed down as just a bit of fill.

[RPCrowe]

I disagree. I think the background was exposed correctly, so by correcting the overexposed subject, the background was left too dark. There's plenty of room for differing opinion here.

Overall, your fix improved the image. Lord knows I do the same thing on a regular basis with my own shots when the flash doesn't behave as I predicted. But the best output is attained when the right balance between ambient and flash is successfully executed.

I definitely agree with you...

There is always room for differences of opinion in the photographic art (as opposed to the photographic science).

IMO, photo art doesn't have to absolutely accurately portray the scene as it is in real life but, can make an interpretation of that scene. IMO, the background in this image doesn't have to reflect the light value of the original scene. To me, the darker background accentuates the back-lit subject. I am not really interested in the detail of the background, only how the subject is presented in the context of that background.

Photo art is entirely a subjective matter, show a hundred photographers the same image and you could conceivably get a hundred different opinions, each one as valid as the others. I have seen many published images which would have ended up in my trash bin. However, I am sure that many of my images would not suit other photographers.

Photo science, on the other hand, requires absolutely accurate exposure and printing that exactly reflects the values of the original scene. An example of this is reconnaissance photography wherein, the aim is to include the absolute greatest information within the image without worrying about ascetic values.

I am a midway guy. I want the most information possible in my original image but, don't necessarily worry about an accurate scene rendition in the final product. I find that I can often achieve the best results in fill lighting by dialing in (isn't that an archaic term - dating back to film photography when most exposure was selected by way of actual dials on the camera) a -1 or -2 stop flash exposure compensation. An additional benefit when using this reduced flash exposure value is that your flash can recycle faster.

A final benefit of the -1 or -2 flash exposure compensation is that the photographer can use a smaller and lighter weight flash. I have recently started carrying the diminutive Canon 270EX flash virtually full time on the camera I use with my 70-200mm f/4L IS lens. You certainly cannot light the entire world with this tiny flash but, its size and weight allows me to carry it all day long with no problems. It weighs only five ounces or so, and has a very low profile. However, this low profile is both a plus and a minus: + it balances nicely on the camera and - a large lens hood such as on the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens will cast a shadow at the bottom of the frame when shooting at wider focal lengths. Since I use this on my 70-200mm lens, that is not a problem when I need some fill in my portraiture.

BTW: even though this flash is close to the axis of the lens, I have not experienced red-eye in outdoor fill portraits. I carry a Joe Demb Flip-It Junior reflector diffuser to use when shooting in darker areas wherein the flash is my primary lighting and ambient light is secondary.

The 270EX is capable of HSS so I don't have to worry about keeping my shutter speed down to 1/250 second or slower. I just keep the flash on the camera and turn it on and off as to when I need it.

[pilsburypie]

You are right about photos being subjective - I find in fairly close quarters outside a FEC of -1 gives me results I'm happy with most of the time.

Took my camera to the park today without the flash and took some photos of my little girl (main model!) splashing in the stream. I am still a flash addict. Looked at each one and thought: just a little bit would have made that "pop"..;)

[pilsburypie]

Just thought while I mull over my trip to the park with no flash - here is a photo I was pleased with I took the other day and thought that the fill was just right.... in my opinion!

[Wilt]

Just thought while I mull over my trip to the park with no flash - here is a photo I was pleased with I took the other day and thought that the fill was just right.... in my opinion!

Agree!

[Curtis N]

here is a photo I was pleased with I took the other day and thought that the fill was just right.... in my opinion!Lighting looks good. Now warm up the color temp a little so she doesn't look quite so blue.
:D

(Disclaimer - photo being viewed on an uncalibrated monitor)

[Wilt]

Fairly neutral face, if you ask me, Curtis. You need to adjust your uncalibrated monitor! :lol:

[pilsburypie]

How do you mean blue? As in not breathing blue? She likes to hold her breath!!

[Curtis N]

Well I'm viewing it on my calibrated monitor now, and it looks better.

I retract my earlier statement.
:D

[shutterfiend]

silhouettes would be totally marred by fill.:D

[airfrogusmc]

"Fill" flash is fast becoming the number one photographic term thrown around by every GWC who has read his owners manual. To them it means any time the flash is turned on outside. It can be at full power and override the ambient light and to them it is fill flash. Fill flash is used when the existing lighting is good, but the shadows need "filled" in, hence the term fill flash. I have posted an image below showing what the existing light looked like before I used fill flash and then after. Note the image does not look like I used a flash of any kind, all the fill flash did was lightly fill in the shadows. The shadow cast by the main light (ambient daylight) is still there.

Benji

In my opinion the fill is to strong. About a half stop to 2/3rds stop less would have still given a nice direction to the light and kept the shadows from getting to deep..

[airfrogusmc]

Bad = overdone, IMHO.
Bad = overexposed

when the subject no longer appears to be naturally lit, that is 'overdone'. when it is obvious that an artificial source was used in the outdoors, that is 'overdone'.

When the fill destroys any beauty that may be happening with the natural light or it is so strong it becomes the main light.

[airfrogusmc]

Heres an example of a candid and in a room with fluorescent light but it was really spotty and not good without fill. The fill was gelled to match color temp of the ambient fluorescent, was defused and set about a stop and a half less than the ambient.
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y118/airfrogusmc/IMG_1137.jpg

Here I have to just keep the shadows from getting to deep but not to overpower the ambient which is a bit cool (open shade) natural. The fill is also about a stop and a half down from the ambient and defused.
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y118/airfrogusmc/IMG_2394.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y118/airfrogusmc/IMG_2430.jpg

[Wilt]

Great use of fill flash, froggy! :D

[airfrogusmc]

Great use of fill flash, froggy! :D

Thanks Wilt...