Frontal flash rots my socks.

I'm sure it has its uses. Journalism-look shots. Night clubs. Old-fashioned wedding photography.

The omnibounce...lightsphe​re...promax...flipit..​.still frontal flash, with some bounce. Still gives the poor modeling as a result of the light source angle, still gives the specular highlights and shadows...the hard shadow lines and flat facial lighting are still there.

What is different about the good lighting in weddings? It's not frontal flash.

If you charge even close to $1k for a basic wedding package...please don't use frontal flash. Learn to bounce, use off-camera lighting, anything else...

How can I instill this concept into the minds of prospective brides & grooms? If only they searched for that kind of lighting that is not flat and plain with those hard shadows...if only they knew that was one of the big differences between ok photos and good/great photos.


P.S. this post is the result of viewing a recent bride's photos taken by a local photographer who is in very serious and direct competition with me in price range, and who is probably getting more business than I am right now...and who owns a Nikon D3 and D700.

Every time I see someone using on camera flash, I cringe.

It's fine IF they are not getting paid and are just taking snapshots for family/personal use. For anyone else, I see no excuse. And I'm referring to frontal flash, not on-camera flash (which can be bounced).

It's all about education. Just like steering people away from taking their hi-res DVD to Costco for printing. During initial meetings, I show couples multiple samples of my prints on a variety of quality papers. I also show them just a couple of the exact same images printed at Costco and Walgreens. When they see it side by side, it doesn't require much further comment from me.

So when you're meeting with clients, talk about how your approach to photography differs and highlight the quality you bring to your images with the use of creative and off-camera lighting. Show them sample images of on-camera flash shots and then show them some of your regular work. I suspect that they'll get it as soon as they see it. Then it's just a matter of messaging that there's a cost that comes with the gear and expertise necessary to produce that type of imagery.

form wrote in post #10131418
And I'm referring to frontal flash, not on-camera flash (which can be bounced).

Here you go: http://strobella.com/

Does anyone actually use direct flash anymore? (Other than your Nikon guy).

I'm about to transition to something more reliable off-camera myself. Getting tired of the Infra red master/slave thing for my 580 and dual 430ex's. I'm checking out radio wireless but still want to use ETTL. But I still like my Demb flip-it on camera for some bounced fill. The Pocket Wizard MiniTT1 transmitter has a hotshoe and can do this but the PW's seem to suck with a 580ex.

RT McAllister wrote in post #10131503
Does anyone actually use direct flash anymore?

I see it all the time. Was just at a bat mitzvah for a friend's daughter and the "pro" photographer (who really is a full time and long established pro) used direct flash with a stofen all night. And the images came out every bit as crappy as I would've expected.

Ainoko wrote in post #10130926
Every time I see someone using on camera flash, I cringe.

But I've seen a lot of "off" camera flash from receptions that looks just as bad. The only difference is it's coming from another direction - it's still direct.

Unless it's an artsy portrait or something intentional I still like good, even, well-diffused light.

Peacefield wrote in post #10131523
and the "pro" photographer (who really is a full time and long established pro) used direct flash with a stofen all night.

But this isn't "direct" flash to me so I'm not sure what form is talking about. I'm assuming he means a bare flash head pointed directly at the subject. I don't see any pros doing that. (Maybe outdoors with a 70-200).

I put a stofen in the same class because it really doesn't improve the image. It obviously doesn't get light off-axis and it doesn't make the light source even an inch bigger. It does, however, do a great job of making your flash work twice as hard and burn up your batteries twice as fast.

My point is...the light is important. Posing aside (which I still don't know how to do), light source angle and size are extremely strong influences on finished product. I have some plans to experiment with my next weddings in terms of lighting, and none of those plans involves direct flash.

No doubt about it, photography is all about light. That's what sets the mood.

I'll be curious to see the results of your experiments.

Sounds like they have more money than knowledge, which can be quite dangerous.

form wrote in post #10130644
P.S. this post is the result of viewing a recent bride's photos taken by a local photographer who is in very serious and direct competition with me in price range, and who is probably getting more business than I am right now...and who owns a Nikon D3 and D700.

Link please?

Bkolowski111 wrote in post #10132102
Link please?

I don't think that would be appropriate.

Another example of how you can do better than another but he gets the gig - I guess they may have better marketing or name recognition within that area?

Either way, I agree with you 100%. Never use the flash mounted on the camera and if you must, learn to bounce the flash for a better effect and a better image.