I DON'T GET IT...

[rlineberg]

I DON'T GET IT...

To me photography has so many aspects. You got composition, posing people, the technical aspect of camera settings... oh and of course light. (slight sarcasm on the lighting aspect) I asked for C&C on a photo recently from some of my closest friends because I respect their opinion. All of which are photographers themselves. I have been exploring off camera flash techniques here recently and using it in recent gigs. (family portraits, engagement sessions, weddings) Anyways, back to my critiques... people keep saying, "it is a nice picture, but it is obvious that you used flash." Am I missing something here? Isn't the purpose of a flash to put light were we need it/want it? I am not uptight about the issue, but I want to make sure that I am not taking off camera flash too far and using it when it shouldn't be used. Here is a picture that received that comment.

(that's me on the right)

http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g300/rlineberg/IMG_4371.jpg

[k_strecker]

I assisted an internationally known photographer in August.

He had the crew make a major adjustment to the lighting on location

Art director asked "Why?"

he said, "So our lighting matches the sun" . . .

Sure, flash should be used to put light where you need it when you can't get it naturally. But, a prevailing train of thought amongst lighting masters is that it should be natural looking. Match the angle of the sun in the background, maintain a similar quality of light.

They're in soft, open, shade. So, if you want to learn from your friend's critique then light them with a much softer lightsource and make sure the color temperature keeps it natural looking. Keep the angles in mind too.

The light's coming from basically flat-right. The angle of the light is unnatural and the intensity/quality isn't blended with the ambient . . .

[rlineberg]

They're in soft, open, shade. So, if you want to learn from your friend's critique then light them with a much softer lightsource and make sure the color temperature keeps it natural looking. Keep the angles in mind too.

The light's coming from basically flat-right. The angle of the light is unnatural and the intensity/quality isn't blended with the ambient . . .

Thanks for the comment. I guess part of my frustration comes for the fact that none of my photographer friends use flash, period. Not even fill flash on camera.

I understand what you are saying about the angle, but if in this case the angle of the sun is directly behind us (maybe a little to picture right) should the secondary light source be directly inline with the sun putting it next to the camera left?

[Photon Phil]

I've come to the point that when I use flash many times I want to see that it was flash. Fill is useful of course but I like the power of making my own light.

[k_strecker]

I understand what you are saying about the angle, but if in this case the angle of the sun is directly behind us (maybe a little to picture right) should the secondary light source be directly inline with the sun putting it next to the camera left?

*only* if you want them to look like they're sitting in a pool of sunlight.

The alternative is to do something to DRAMATICALLY soften the light. Bounce through scrims, off reflectors, big softboxes, whatever it takes.

that way they look shadow-lit (well, lit by the open sky more technically), and simply brighter than the natural lighting so they receive a good balance of exposure.

Stand where your subject will be standing, and look at where the light that's hitting them is coming from. Mimic this light with your flashes, and you'll keep a natural look. And remember to mimic the *quality* of the light, not just the direction.

as far as "they don't use flash" . . . that's a personal decision. You may have a *perfectly* lit photo, but if they secretly know it's lit by flash even if it's not visually obvious they may find issue with it. I don't know how purist they are, but it's something to keep in mind for their next criticism . . .

[rlineberg]

*only* if you want them to look like they're sitting in a pool of sunlight.

The alternative is to do something to DRAMATICALLY soften the light. Bounce through scrims, off reflectors, big softboxes, whatever it takes.

that way they look shadow-lit (well, lit by the open sky more technically), and simply brighter than the natural lighting so they receive a good balance of exposure.

Stand where your subject will be standing, and look at where the light that's hitting them is coming from. Mimic this light with your flashes, and you'll keep a natural look. And remember to mimic the *quality* of the light, not just the direction.

as far as "they don't use flash" . . . that's a personal decision. You may have a *perfectly* lit photo, but if they secretly know it's lit by flash even if it's not visually obvious they may find issue with it. I don't know how purist they are, but it's something to keep in mind for their next criticism . . .

This was EXTREMELY helpful. Although I don't have the equipment that it takes to pull off all you said, I know what you are talking about. The phrase I seen on POTN about "not being able to overpower the sun with speedlights" makes more sense now. And I guess it boils down to the effect of the photo you are going for. In this case it is obvious to the viewer I was not going for natural lighting and for someone who only uses natural lighting that would be a sin worth pointing out. But in the same seniro I am much happier with my result in being able to see the subjects as well as the background... so to my "all natural light" friends... to them I say, bring it on. :)

I am looking forward to working with the concept of making pictures seem more naturally lit with the use of flash. It looks like a challenge, but something very rewarding in the end if I can pull it off. Thanks for your help!

[umphotography]

start shooting in manual flash mode and use a light meter. you will quickly learn to back down the flash output to someplace b/t 1/8--1/32 and get nicely blended use of ambiant and flash. your photo looks to me like you could have opened the aperature up a little more to get more light behind the subjects and turned down the flash output a lot to get a good blend.....just my thoughts

[snyderman]

your pic is a great example. If you really look at the subjects compared to the background, they almost look like they were photoshopped into a landscape image.

I like what k_strecker said. A lot of truth there. Easy to understand. Harder to put into practical application.

Also, your photo friends are shooting straight with you. The image you posted shows obvious flash which in context with the overall pic makes it even more obvious. Not like I'm anywhere near balance lighting and angles at all, either, so we'll both have to keep practicing!

dave

[korrektor]

I'd say... screw it. so what if it's obvious that you used a flash? does it look good? yep. The rest does not matter.

BUT

if you have a specific task to create sunshine when it's overcast... then, warm gelled giant light mods come out and stuff like this. It all depends on what you are after, For instance I take photos and it is very obvious that there's ample artificial lighting - but that's what I am going for.

[symbolphoto]

the only reason this photos screams 'Flash' to me is that the background area behind the subjects is completely dark. If you created a layer mask and blended in exposures you'd have it looking a lot less like flash. It's not like the subjects skin is overexposed or something, it's fine.

The only other difference is the left most pant leg. It's got a rather harsh shadow.

Flash isn't perfect and it'll never replace natural light. But you can surely do your best to make it as close as possible.

[Player9]

It's a good picture to me, but there is a slight feel (to my eyes) of this being a montage. It's almost as if the two subject are on a separate photoshop layer. As others have mentioned, the issue is caused by the harshness of the light (note the sharp-edged shadows on the blue jeans) and the odd directionality of the light on the subjects, when the rest of the photo is telling me that this is supposed to look like a backlit photo. If it were me, I would have used the flash directly above the lens, and with much lower power. But it's all nitpicking really. Most folks would love this photo.

[brit84]

I like that picture, so many use a flash is a scene like this.
The only point that I would state is that the flash is 'obvious' becasue of the shadow of your friends arms on his legs.

It is a backlit photo so I dont know why people are commenting negatively about the use of flash. It is what you do in this case

[agv8or]

Two minor comments. When trying to overpower the sun (which you did very well whether you were trying to or not) you need to make sure not to overexpose the foreground or subjects in the process. You have about a 1/2 stop or so of overexposure on you and your friend which shows up very clearly in the skin tones and the pant legs on the guy on the left. You have no blown highlights in the image so a little localized photoshop work you'll be ok. Second be very careful of distracting shadows. The shadow left by the arms and hands of the guy on the left is distracting (it looks like he making hand puppets) and your slight flash overexposure is drawing attention to it. Watch how you pose your subjects to minimize these distracting shadows. Shadows are an important part of lighting as they add three demensional form and depth to an image but if they look unatural or distracting they can usually be easily fixed by reposing a subject or lowering contrast by adding fill light (reflector or flash) or lowering main flash value closer to ambient value. Since you were overpowering the ambient your best course of action would have been to reposition his arms and hands and lowered your flash output about a 1/2 stop. Those are just two things to watch for in the future. If it weren't for those to minor issues I would say you have yourself a very respectable photo and are on your way to many more.

[Gel]

NOt experienced to really comment but you may of got away with a gold brolly, diffuser etc to warm the light rather than turn it down.

That might of made the lighting less obvious by warming it up to match the background.

That said, you don't always think that when taking a shot and only realise it when you look at the pics on a pc.

IMO I would only have obvious flash if you wanted some kind of dramatic mood or effect.

[FELINEDEBOURGES]

I think when you pointed out the fact that they don't use flash at all is the thing that matters most. How you lit the scene is a matter of style and preference. You clearly really like how this photo came out. I personally don't mind the "look" of flash except when it leaves hard edged shadows (which I'm not a fan of either even if it's in all natural light!) I think if you want better critiques for photos in which you use OCF you probably should avoid asking for their opinions since they have not the know-how or knowledge about lighting using non-natural or ambient light. Just like I've learned I can't ask my husband about about how he likes any given image because he says the weirdest things because he doesn't understand photography very much.

[TMR Design]

I assisted an internationally known photographer in August.

He had the crew make a major adjustment to the lighting on location

Art director asked "Why?"

he said, "So our lighting matches the sun" . . .

Sure, flash should be used to put light where you need it when you can't get it naturally. But, a prevailing train of thought amongst lighting masters is that it should be natural looking. Match the angle of the sun in the background, maintain a similar quality of light.

They're in soft, open, shade. So, if you want to learn from your friend's critique then light them with a much softer lightsource and make sure the color temperature keeps it natural looking. Keep the angles in mind too.

The light's coming from basically flat-right. The angle of the light is unnatural and the intensity/quality isn't blended with the ambient . . .

+1. Exactly, and well said.

There is also the issue of 2 apparently different light sources competing for dominance. Unlike working in the studio where we really isolate the subjects because there is no competing background or light sources, this is very different.