Photojournalism: Fill Flash or No Fill Flash?

Say you work for a newspaper, is it proper to use fill flash on a bright, easy ISO100 day, or would the fill flash provide a less realistic image than the flashless image?

One does whatever one must to get the best possible images.
That often will mean fill flash.

^+1 Do what you need to get the shot..

When does one cross the line? Obviously, cloning things in and out isn't allowed, even thought that could make an image nicer...

Is HDR okay? What isn't okay?

This is one of my favorite sites. Browse through the albums and it should give you an idea..

http://www.boston.com/​bigpicture/

btw are you thinking about photojournalism? Crossing the line is a very open term to use considering the shots I've seen. Pictures are powerful and most photographers in that field get the shot. Good, bad, ugly, they're there for a reason.

Fill flash is adding light to the scene and then photographing it.
There is no post capture image manipulation.
That's the ethical line for photojournalists' as I understand it.
Just about every sporting event indoors has strobes in the ceiling to capture the action.
Adding fill light outside is just good photographic technique. We did it with film and continue to do it with digital.

Just don't touch the pixels. That would rule out HDR since its a post capture manipulation.

So, then I can't add fill light in RAW? Graduated exposure adjustments to deal with blown out skies? What about saturation? Dodging and burning?

The Rule of Thumb I worked by in film days was that you can change the presentation of the image (exposure, dodging, burning, time in bath); you do not alter content (adding, removing, or manipulating elements of the picture). You can crop, as long as you do not alter context relating to the central point of the image.

If realistic means having a darkened barely visible subject against a bright backdrop being printed on newsprint with far less range, then don't use the fill flash.

The Associated Press will fire you for burning and dodging these days, according to my photojournalism professor who currently does work for the Associated Press (among many, many others).

Fill flash is ok.

Sam6644 wrote in post #12527494
The Associated Press will fire you for burning and dodging these days, according to my photojournalism professor who currently does work for the Associated Press (among many, many others).

Fill flash is ok.

Really? That's a tad anal. I suppose Photoshop has propelled everyone to the stupidly PC end of the spectrum.

Photo-journalism marks events in a historical context and it's somewhat precious to impose a blanket ban on dodging and burning. After all, the very initial act of snapping an image involves an editorial judgement in timing, angle, distance and exposure.

Opportunity? If you happen to capture a 3-stop under-exposed shot of Obama being violated by a sex-crazed gerbil, or QEII being attacked by a homocidal pigeon, I think you're justified in tweaking it up in PP to capture some image of the event. Provided, of course, you 'fess up in the caption exactly what you've done.

Or am I hopelessly Old School?

xhack wrote in post #12527086
You can crop, as long as you do not alter context relating to the central point of the image.

Which news bureau was lambasted for cropping out Palestinian weapons in a photo taken on a flotilla boat invaded by the Israelis?

Savas K wrote in post #12527672
Which news bureau was lambasted for cropping out Palestinian weapons in a photo taken on a flotilla boat invaded by the Israelis?

Don't know - which? I'm guessing AP?

I never came across that accusation; it'd be totally out of order were it true (for context - on the day following the raid, the Israeli government said marines who boarded the vessel opened fire in self-defense after activists clubbed and stabbed them and snatched some of their weapons).

xhack wrote in post #12527603
Really? That's a tad anal. I suppose Photoshop has propelled everyone to the stupidly PC end of the spectrum.

Photo-journalism marks events in a historical context and it's somewhat precious to impose a blanket ban on dodging and burning. After all, the very initial act of snapping an image involves an editorial judgement in timing, angle, distance and exposure.

Opportunity? If you happen to capture a 3-stop under-exposed shot of Obama being violated by a sex-crazed gerbil, or QEII being attacked by a homocidal pigeon, I think you're justified in tweaking it up in PP to capture some image of the event. Provided, of course, you 'fess up in the caption exactly what you've done.

Or am I hopelessly Old School?

Correcting exposure is ok, but it's the selective burning and dodging that will get you in trouble.


This is the textbook we use at school. It has a whole chapter on such things. It's an awesome book to own, too. I'd suggest it to anyone interested in understanding photojournalism better in every aspect.

Real Photojournalists All use Flash

AND 4x5" PRESS CAMERAS

IMAGE LINK: http://rpcrowe.smugmug​.com …QWH#1225992774_​6v9pE-A-LB