better lens vs better flash?

[markc]

I guess we are driving at different points and I may be overstating things. Yes, I agree that a diffuser is better than do diffuser in that it spreads the light, but I don't think it makes up for using a built-in flash. The light is still mostly direct, the shadows are still crappy, etc., etc. And you need a flash that has enough power to overcome the fact the light is getting scattered and less is reaching the subject. And you need something around the subject to have that scattered light reach or it's not doing much good. It either needs to bounce off to soften the light on the subject, or be lit be the flash so it can show this difference you are talking about. When I was speaking of dimming, I didn't mean how the subject looked in relation, but an actual meter reading at the subject. Less light reaches it.

I'm not sure how else to put it, so I'll just let it drop there. At this point I'm probably going to need to see a side-by-side comparison to convince me otherwise.

 

[nakedyak]

Those are all of insects. I guess that falls into the normal realm of what people take pictures of, but people are more common. It's hard for me to judge what they are taken with. There are no eyes. If you are doing a comparison, I think you need to compare like with like.

My original post basically just said that the in camera flash can work fine for insect and macro photography, which I think I have demonstrated. I don't think the built in flash is good for people photography, and I never said that it was. Obviously an external flash is going to be better in just about every situation, but my point was that the built in flash can be adequate for some situations, i.e. macro photography, hence my links to insect shots. That is all.

 

[nakedyak]

I guess we are driving at different points and I may be overstating things. Yes, I agree that a diffuser is better than do diffuser in that it spreads the light, but I don't think it makes up for using a built-in flash. The light is still mostly direct, the shadows are still crappy, etc., etc. And you need a flash that has enough power to overcome the fact the light is getting scattered and less is reaching the subject. And you need something around the subject to have that scattered light reach or it's not doing much good. It either needs to bounce off to soften the light on the subject, or be lit be the flash so it can show this difference you are talking about. When I was speaking of dimming, I didn't mean how the subject looked in relation, but an actual meter reading at the subject. Less light reaches it.

I'm not sure how else to put it, so I'll just let it drop there. At this point I'm probably going to need to see a side-by-side comparison to convince me otherwise.

The reason I ever brought up the diffuser at all was not that it helped out on the built in camera for people photography, but that I used it mainly with my macro shots, and at that close up range, the diffuser seems to help quite a bit.

 

[shingfan]

mark: you are absolutely correct about the use of external flash and boucing technique...no doubt they would help softening the subject.....i was just emphasizing my point about the benefit of a diffuser added to the external flash....it does provide a better and softer spread on the subject with a diffuser on

 

[markc]

My original post basically just said that the in camera flash can work fine for insect and macro photography, which I think I have demonstrated. I don't think the built in flash is good for people photography, and I never said that it was. Obviously an external flash is going to be better in just about every situation, but my point was that the built in flash can be adequate for some situations, i.e. macro photography, hence my links to insect shots. That is all.

Ok, cool. Sorry about that. I think I'm crossing posts up here.
In my defense, I thought the subject matter would also stay the same when you issued the challenge, or at least be in similar situations. If you used the built-in only on the insects, then yes, it will be hard to pick that out.

 

[markc]

mark: you are absolutely correct about the use of external flash and boucing technique...no doubt they would help softening the subject.....i was just emphasizing my point about the benefit of a diffuser added to the external flash....it does provide a better and softer spread on the subject with a diffuser on

If you are bouncing, then yeah, I completely agree with that. I was mainly siding with this statement:

But I will mention that diffusion doesn't do anything to help on-camera flash.

"Anything" may be overstating things, but in my mind, it's just adding a bit of sugar to a recipe that already has WAY too much salt. I'd rather just not eat it.

This whole time, I've been talking about diffusing a built-in or an external pointed right at the subject, which is nearly the same thing. Bounce flash is something else entirely.

 

[shingfan]

markc: i should really show you how sweet a diffuser is when boucing is not available....lol

btw....these are all direct flash with diffuser on....i was experimenting to see how to use direct flash to achieve better exposure when boucning is not possible (the third one is a little washed out by the flash because he was moving toward my flash when i take the shot...lol )

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=70501

 

[markc]

The highlights aren't as harsh as without a diffuser, but I still don't care for the lighting. Sorry.

 

[shingfan]

The highlights aren't as harsh as without a diffuser, but I still don't care for the lighting. Sorry.

good...i was only trying to convince you about the highlights not being as harsh when diffuser is on......those are only snapshots in the living room when my little cousin was playing on the floor.....there is not much to the lighting as i only have a camera and the external flash SB600

btw....if you might...please comment on my shots as to what i can do to make them look better..thanks

 

[nakedyak]

markc: i should really show you how sweet a diffuser is when boucing is not available....lol

btw....these are all direct flash with diffuser on....i was experimenting to see how to use direct flash to achieve better exposure when boucning is not possible (the third one is a little washed out by the flash because he was moving toward my flash when i take the shot...lol )

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=70501

i don't think they look half bad for just being snapshots with the direct flash. certainly works just for around the house stuff

 

[xfloggingkylex]

I touched on that a little bit. It doesn't soften the shadows unless there is something nearby for the scattered light to bounce off of. The flash is still the same size, so the main light is still coming from a small source and giving a harsh shadow. That's hard to overcome. I haven't seen a direct comparison of the same shot with and without a diffuser that convinces me otherwise, but if someone can post one, I'd happily change my tune.

And even if you do get softer light, it's still direct. I can't think of a picture I've seen taken with on-camera flash that I haven't thought could be improved with better lighting.

As for the lens, I've already said that I'd personally go for that, as I prefer natural light over artificial. I'm in the flash debate in case that's the way he wants to go, and some of us disagree on it's application.

I think we are both in agreement here. You wont hear me arguing that the build in flash with a diffuser is better than an external flash, but I will say that a diffused popup is better than a non diffused popup. FMW stated that adding a diffusor didn't help AT ALL.

 

[markc]

FMW stated that adding a diffusor didn't help AT ALL.

I can't speak for him, but in my mind, it doesn't help enough. At least not enough to use a built-in. I personally would rather just not take the shot. Yeah, I might use it for a snapshot or if I need to take a photo of something for e-Bay, but not if I want to create an image that I care about.

So yes, I think we agree. We just have different degrees of what we find acceptable, which he also mentioned. It's hard to say that and not sound snotty, but as I've seen more and more photography and gotten to know it, I've found that kind of flash to be more and more distasteful. That's just the way things have gone, and it's the same for a lot of people (though not everyone). I know a lot of this depends on simple taste, and that can't be judged as good or bad, but I think there are aspects that go beyond simple aesthetics.

 

[fmw]

I can't speak for him, but in my mind, it doesn't help enough. At least not enough to use a built-in. I personally would rather just not take the shot. Yeah, I might use it for a snapshot or if I need to take a photo of something for e-Bay, but not if I want to create an image that I care about.

I think that's a fair statement, Mark. I often assume things that I shouldn't when I respond to people.

I'll try to explain myself a little better for those that were worried about my statement.

Diffusion itself doesn't soften light. Light becomes softer when it is larger in size relative to the subject. Think of the difference between a sunny day outdoors and an overcast one. On the sunny day you have a point light source - the sun - making hard light with hard shadows. On an overcast day you have the overcast sky lit by the sun which in turns lights the subject. Now the light source is huge, the light is soft and so are shadows, if they exist at all.

In a photo studio we create soft light by shooting our lights through a big soft box or we bounce it from an umbrella to make it bigger relative to the subject. How soft it is depends on the relative size of the two. So you also soften artificial light by moving it closer to the subject.

The softbox doesn't soften light because it diffuses the light - even though it does. It softens it by making it larger. The diffusion part of the equation is simply to spread the light evenly across the surface of the soft box to enlarge it.

Bouncing a portable flash gun from a ceiling accomplishes much the same thing. We don't do that in a studio because it is too hard to control but it is an effective technique for softening light when you are mobil with a portable flash unit.

You can put all the frosty things you want in front of a flash gun and it won't affect anything except the lumens of light striking the subject - unless they are large and enlarge the light source. But shoot the light at something that makes the light bigger and, in turn, lights the subject and you have soft light.

The little bounce cards that attach to flash guns do enlarge the light source a little and can be effective with smaller subjects up close. Remember it is the relative size between source and subject that determines softness. But the bounce card won't do much to soften light with large subjects. It can help a little but, as MarK says, not enough to matter the way most people use them.

My mobil flash work was usually corporate events. I suppose it is something like shooting a wedding. If I was in a room that allowed bouncing from the ceiling that's what I did - or off a wall if one was near. In the cases where bouncing wasn't an option, I just settled for hard light. But using a bounce card just didn't make enough difference in shooting people to deal with the hassle. My normal working mode was to have a shoe mount flash gun attached to the camera with a long, coiled cord and then I would keep the flash in a vest pocket. When I wanted to use it, I would pull it out of my pocket, extend my arm and shoot. No room for bounce cards with that technique.

A lot of pros use handle flash units and brackets to get more flash power. I used to do the same in the days before TTL flash metering. But I felt I got better modeling with a shoe mount flash gun held at arms length than I did from a bracket-mounted flash.

Hopefully this helps clarify my statements.