Flash Bracket, Lightsphere? In need of some lighting tips.

[AmberAtLoveAndInk]

Anyways the OP never mentioned 20 foot ceilings. Secondly I think that adding the difficulty of using a bracket for someone who has never shot a wedding would be too much. My suggestion of bouncing the flash and skipping the diffuser was in an attempt to have her focus on the basics rather than over complicate things. Lastly she doesn't have the budget to buy a bracket and cord.

I'm not sure about the ceiling height and I'm a pretty quick learner when it comes to things I'm interested in. I think I could learn to use a bracket successfully over the next two months. For budget, in my previous post about renting a lens for the free wedding, my budget is zilch simply because I am not getting paid for any of my work and buying an L lens is not an option at the moment, however, when it comes to equipment that I can use for as long as I like and doesn't involve three 0's I'm pretty open to my spending. I know nothing of course, which is why I posted this thread but from all of what I read here and other sources online I see no reason NOT to get a bracket, especially with the ISO I have on a 60D. I'll be using a flash more often than not indoors and this seems like a good option for me.

Thanks again everyone for taking your time to reply to my threads and giving me your words of wisdom. I do believe I am starting to enjoy this forum and am getting familiar with everyone's argumentative/playful banter

 

[Gavjenks]

Diffusers and TTL cords are two different concepts. Diffusers soften light (compared to none at a given distance at least), whereas a TTL cord allows you to control angle of light.

Ideally you want both if you want the most control over handheld flash.

Your main variables in handheld flash are:
1) What type of diffusion, if any. In a given field situation, you often have more options than you might think. Perhaps: None vs. something like a snap on diffuser vs. a little bracket that lets you attach a small umbrella vs. bounced from a wall or ceiling.
2) Where you hold the light, which has a few parts to it
a) "Way the hell off to the side," "a little off center" or "in line with the camera"
b) "High" versus "level with the subject" (low is rarely helpful unless you're shooting a B horror flick).
c) Bounced? (which is part diffusion, part changing angle)
3) How the subject is turned with respect to you (and your light). Which in different circumstances can be controlled either by instructing the model or if it's a candid, by moving yourself to a new position.
4) Flash strength

By messing around with those, you can achieve most basic types of lighting. If you're indoor with neutral walls and can bounce, then you're almost unlimited in what you can do if you're clever and practiced. If you can't bounce, then some things are difficult (like narrow lighting and/or split lighting, although still slightly possible if you strain yourself), but you still have infinitely more possibilities than with on camera flash.

I don't think there's really a whole lot more to say than that. You learn what choices to make by practicing a lot. And maybe looking up photos you like and thinking about where the lights must have been and then trying to mimic them handheld, etc.



Budget is almost nothing if you have a speedlight already. A cord is like $40 (you want a nice robust one that can go out to your arm's reach without tugging, but not too much further so you don't trip over it), and a thing for an umbrella or a snap diffuser maybe $2-5 each.

 

[pixmedic]

I don't know. So far my statement is pretty accurate. But it is facebook.. probably not accurate. Or maybe because my friends are 35 and younger? Not true.. I am 36 my self.

<img src="http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=68993"/>

I could find 10 natural light photographers and make a statement saying 95% of photographers dont use flash.

I could find 10 photographers that only use prime lenses and say that 95% of photographers don't use zoom lenses.

I could find 10 photographers that only use image stabilized lenses and say that 95% of photographers dont use tripods.

The OP asked about lighting and lighting tips. A statement of "me and my friends don't use this tool" does nothing to give the OP any insight as to why she should not run out and buy one despite several people giving explanations on why she should.

 

[Robin Usagani]

Jason.. The op is getting ready to shoot a wedding and started several posts asking about things to buy. I simply saying most wedding photographers do not use a bracket anymore. What part of that is offensive or not true? I NEVER said it was useless.. I didn't even say anything about the Lightsphere because I know the thread will go south.

Me and my friends? I am telling you most wedding photographers do not use that tool anymore!

 

[runnah]

The OP asked about lighting and lighting tips. A statement of "me and my friends don't use this tool" does nothing to give the OP any insight as to why she should not run out and buy one despite several people giving explanations on why she should.

No? Robin is pretty darn good at his weddings so I would take it as a valid opinion. Just as I would take the opinion of others for the bracket. There is no RIGHT or WRONG in this situation and people need to start treating it as such.

 

[Braineack]

I'm done with this thread. I'll let the younger Canon 5D Mark III and zoom lenses/ sell off all my zoom lenses/ go all-prime lenses/ RE-buy my zoom lenses guy take it on home...

Don't stop, I need to actually learn...

 

[pixmedic]

Jason.. The op is getting ready to shoot a wedding and started several posts asking about things to buy. I simply saying most wedding photographers do not use a bracket anymore. What part of that is offensive or not true? I NEVER said it was useless.. I didn't even say anything about the Lightsphere because I know the thread will go south.

Me and my friends? I am telling you most wedding photographers do not use that tool anymore!

I never said it WAS offensive. But, like
Several others, I am curious as to why you and others do not use one. It seemed like a pretty simple question. Are there techniques I am missing that negate the need for a bracket? Why do most photographers not use them? I clearly stated why I use one, but I still have no idea why you do not.

You already know how I feel about your work Robin, so I don't need to kiss your butt on this thread. I feel like you have some important bit of experience or knowledge you are hoarding by not explaining why using a flash bracket is obsolete.

 

[Robin Usagani]

If I have to guess.. it is probably because nowadays we can chimp our shot and it is easier to work with raw files vs film. I can use ttl, bounce the flash to ceiling behind me, then look at my screen whether I need to up the FC or lower (or camera setting). If I use manual flash, then I can adjust the power Then it would be somewhat consistent through out the coverage with the same ceiling. If I change my angle of bounce, the ttl will keep it somewhat consistent, and the raw is pretty flexible.

Now if I were to shoot without a reviewing screen/film.. direct flash on a bracket is probably my choice. I would think it will be kinda hard to get consistent result bouncing the flash and less advanced flash metering system/manual power. Bouncing is just another variable in the equation and complicate things.


Again.. That's my theory. I am not saying I have experience with flash photography using film cameras or older film cameras. I think the TTL technology and reviewing screen is the reason people don't use a bracket as much anymore.

 

[runnah]

If I have to guess.. it is probably because nowadays we can chimp our shot and it is easier to work with raw files vs film. I can use ttl, bounce the flash to ceiling behind me, then look at my screen whether I need to up the FCC or lower (or camera setting). If I use manual flash, then I can adjust the power Then it would be somewhat consistent through out the coverage with the same ceiling. If I change my angle of bounce, the ttl will keep it somewhat consistent, and the raw is pretty flexible.

Now if I were to shoot without a reviewing screen/film.. direct flash on a bracket is probably my choice. I would think it will be kinda hard to get consistent result bouncing the flash and less advanced flash metering system/manual power.


Again.. That's my theory. I am not saying I have experience with flash photography using film cameras or older film cameras. I think the TTL technology and reviewing screen is the reason people don't use a bracket as much anymore.

Goes back to what I said about working with low speed film vs. high ISO. Back in the days of film and wedding photography the direct flash method was a lot more common than it is now. This was because it was one the best ways to ensure a result. Thats not to say that no one bounced or was able to do anything different, but in a run and gun situation with variable lighting and do or die situations the direct flash was the best way to get a useable photo.

Now with high ISO, smart metering, TTL and chimping the flexibility is amazing and allows people to be more creative in their lighting.

 

[Robin Usagani]

Now i see super high ISO and no flash become more and more popular (and process it black and white). Who knows where the technology takes us. One day the low light image quality is so good... people will not use flash as much anymore.

Perhaps in 50 years from now I may post another statement that says 95% of wedding photographers do not use flash in low light .

 

[Designer]

Here; from Neil van Niekerk's article:

"So these days I get by without a flash bracket. However, a flash bracket would still give you an advantage when you bounce flash such that all the light is indirect – and that is that the direction of your light source remainds the same between vertical and horizontal photos taken from the same position. This consistency in lighting can help."

"As mentioned, flash brackets are bulky and add extra weight to the camera, and these days I prefer to work without one. But they can help with the consistency of bouncing flash, and definitely do help in avoiding side-shadows when using direct on-camera flash is unavoidable."

So see? You're BOTH right! There are (1) distinct advantages to using a bracket, although (2) nobody uses one anymore.

 

[Designer]

As to another REASON WHY most photographers don't use a bracket now-a-days is because red-eye correction is a simple mouse click, and "back in the film days" (I am WAY over 35) photographers had to go to considerable work to correct red-eye in the darkroom.

 

[pixmedic]

Now i see super high ISO and no flash become more and more popular (and process it black and white). Who knows where the technology takes us. One day the low light image quality is so good... people will not use flash as much anymore.

Perhaps in 50 years from now I may post another statement that says 95% of wedding photographers do not use flash in low light .

That actually makes a lot of sense. I guess using a bracket just became habit for me. I do chimp a lot. Especially when I want to dial in manual flash settings

 

[Braineack]

As to another REASON WHY most photographers don't use a bracket now-a-days is because red-eye correction is a simple mouse click, and "back in the film days" (I am WAY over 35) photographers had to go to considerable work to correct red-eye in the darkroom.

Well if Terry Richarson uses a bracket to produce washed-out, boring images of celebrities in stupid poses, so shoud I!


I absolutely see the benefit of a braket in a situation where you need OCF and shooting in a portrait orientation.

 

[Robin Usagani]

Yeah.. Perhaps i can improve my photos a bit with one. I cant see me using one plus carrying another camera. Sometimes you just have to step back and look at what will work for you the best. There is no way i can carry 2 cameras and one or both of them use a bracket. I rather have the versatility of having 2 lenses ready to fire with on camera flashes that will give me somewhat decent results vs only one lens with light that givea me a slightly better result.