Fast glass versus flash, an example.

While a lot of users will argue in favor of fast glass as an alternative to using a flash, I've never bought into the idea that having sufficient light necessarily made it good light. I finally got a chance to take an example shot that demonstrates that. These shots were taken in a hotel conference room with recessed tungsten lighting.

Available light.

I know what you mean - the shadows on the speakers' face and chest are not very appealing in the first image and it's a big reason why I try to avoid using large apertures as a substitute for bounced flash in low light when at all possible.

However, I find the skin tone more appealing in the first image - not that a thing like that would probably matter in this setting. Maybe the gel used was just a little cool for my taste.

MNUplander wrote in post #15548314
I know what you mean - the shadows on the speakers' face and chest are not very appealing in the first image and it's a big reason why I try to avoid using large apertures as a substitute for bounced flash in low light when at all possible.

However, I find the skin tone more appealing in the first image - not that a thing like that would probably matter in this setting. Maybe the gel used was just a little cool for my taste.

Honestly i didnt spend much time in post on these either. I just adjusted the white balance to make the scene appear roughly similar.

It isn't an either-or proposition.

You can use fast glass AND strobes.

Thomas Campbell wrote in post #15548344
It isn't an either-or proposition.

You can use fast glass AND strobes.

85mm 1.2L II at f/2.2

Of course. My examples were made with an 85 1.8.

Agreed. Id much rather have a kit lens and the ability to use flash than any speed of fast glass.

I found it just as challenging, getting a decent picture of Dan Rutherford.

This is bounced flash in a big, high ceiling hotel conference room.

Curtis N wrote in post #15549035
I found it just as challenging, getting a decent picture of Dan Rutherford.

He tends to make faces, not as bad as former mayor Daley though. We have shot the same people two times, I have similar shots of Cory Jobe, one of our Aldermen.

Yeah Cory also works for the State Comptroller's Office. I'm a county treasurer so it's common to have the Springfield brass address our conferences when we're in town.

Or reverse bounce off the ceiling.

gonzogolf wrote in post #15548289
There is still some shadowing under his eye in the bounced shots, ordinarily I would use a bounce card to kick a bit of light forward, but these were taken at a luncheon where I didnt bring the full bag of toys.

This is why I have a rubber band around each of my 430EXIIs (the 580EXIIs have the small card built in). If something like this were to occur, I could snag a nearby piece of paper or napkin to bounce some light forward as well.

Yippee for fast glass and bounce flash!

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/56709879@N07/8​427760871/

Gonz

great examples. Im so sick of the natural light photographers terminology. A flash is the way to go and when blended with ambient properly, the best way to go as well.

I have never seen it as a "one OR the other" question. It totally depends on what the problem is, and what you will use to solve the problem.

Bad light in general? Good light but very dim? Bad shadows? Dim light from the wrong direction?...on and on... Some problems will demand a flash. Others only need a larger aperture. The answer is dependent on the problem.