I don't need flash. I can use fast glass and high ISO.

Wrong!

A common misconception about flash is that its purpose is to "brighten up" a scene with low light. Hence, some will speculate that with the amazing high ISO capabilities of modern digital cameras, maybe flash units aren't so necessary anymore.

Well, take a look at the image on the left. The woman was standing under a recessed ceiling fixture. To add insult to injury, the lamp was a compact fluorescent. The position and direction of the light was most unflattering, with the putrid green fluorescent color to boot.

No super-duper high ISO camera will make that light better. Your big, expensive, fast prime lens will be powerless to improve the situation. You can only improve it with lighting.

The image on the right was lit with a flash unit on a bracket with a Lumiquest Softbox. Not the greatest light to be sure, but the best practical solution for the situation (the ceiling was high and black). As much as we cringe at the thought of being forced to use direct flash, it's often a whole lot better than nothing.

Agree with you Curtis!

Curtis, when I saw your name under that title my first thought was poor guy, he's lost his mind. Glad to see I was wrong.

I don't think I've ever heard that argument....

It's like beer goggles in reverse - ouch.

I once said in these forums:

Sometimes you gotta light with what ever is at hand:

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

_aravena wrote in post #8636509
I don't think I've ever heard that argument....

Maybe not in so many words.

But I wish I had a dime for everytime someone asked, "Should I get a flash unit, or would a 50mm f/1.4 work just as well for indoor shots?"

this should be a sticky!

nice catchy title!

Curtis N wrote in post #8638311
But I wish I had a dime for everytime someone asked, "Should I get a flash unit, or would a 50mm f/1.4 work just as well for indoor shots?"

I know... I worked at an all day outdoor event and the other photographer just brought along his 5D and no flash. We were hired by the same person and they used 95% of my images. Don't know what he was thinking.

Curtis....Bouncing off a side wall would have worked....would it?

cappy1927 wrote in post #8638681
Curtis....Bouncing off a side wall would have worked....would it?

That looks like a trade show in a huge hall, so probably not. But if you could find someone wearing a white shirt to bounce the light off that'd work. Make sure they don't look at the flash, those suckers are bright!

Good post Curtis. Thanks.

In the end, what we're doing is capturing light. Images are basically reflections of light. The flash is just another light enhancement tool, and probably the most difficult to master.

While i agree partially.


I still think there is a compulsion to use flash regardless of the scene.(a downside to the strobist hype )

Many times you simply can work with the ambient light instead of resorting to flash just because you have one. This naturally requires one to learn to see the light wich takes more time then to rely on automatic flash metering.


Of course diffrent genre's/scenarios requires diffrent tools.

When you get to the point where you see light as light, you become dangerous.

So while it may be easy to write off questions like.

Its depends on more then getting a "proper" exposure, just as highiso performance/lens can't shape the light, a flash in it self cant change the depth of field.

Sure for most snappers a flash on camera is not a bad idea indoors, however how many people have no windows and overheadspotlights in their homes ?

Flash has it place when used correctly no doubt.

Kindest