Flash photos

[paigew]

Stradawhovious, would you mind sharing the link to your flickr? It isn't in your signature. I would love to see some of your awesome flash work (on people). Since charlie has already submitted his best work

That is not my best work.. those are merely a few of the very few people shots I have. I don't shoot people for the same reason I don't shoot newborns.. I have no interest in them!

I don't see any awesome work from you in my chosen area of photography.. correct? Or do you even shoot macro?

It sounds like you are being a bit catty and superior... so I will say that I would be amazed if you can post anything that is even equal to the shots I did post.. and they are basically my version of snapshots, as they are candids.

I'm not talking crap about your work. You do awesome work and I have commented on how much I like your work. But seriously, why did you use flash in that first image taken in full sun. You didn't need to. You had a crap ton of light (you said yourself). You could have positioned yourself or your subject differently so flash was not needed. Plus the portraits you posted seem rather flat (from the flash). That is all I am saying. Maybe I should just quote myself so people get the point. Not sure if the man vibes are getting in the way of your ability to read. If you don't need it, don't use it.

I have had my camera 9 months. I am no professional. Though I study and read a lot and I know a pretty decent amount I still consider myself a novice. I practice almost every single day. I am not trying to appear superior. But the op wants lighting to shoot his child. Since you don't shoot children or even people perhaps you aren't the best one to take advice from.

 

[cgipson1]

Stradawhovious, would you mind sharing the link to your flickr? It isn't in your signature. I would love to see some of your awesome flash work (on people). Since charlie has already submitted his best work

That is not my best work.. those are merely a few of the very few people shots I have. I don't shoot people for the same reason I don't shoot newborns.. I have no interest in them!

I don't see any awesome work from you in my chosen area of photography.. correct? Or do you even shoot macro?

It sounds like you are being a bit catty and superior... so I will say that I would be amazed if you can post anything that is even equal to the shots I did post.. and they are basically my version of snapshots, as they are candids.

I'm not talking crap about your work. You do awesome work and I have commented on how much I like your work. But seriously, why did you use flash in that first image taken in full sun. You didn't need to. You had a crap ton of light (you said yourself). You could have positioned yourself or your subject differently so flash was not needed. Plus the portraits you posted seem rather flat (from the flash). That is all I am saying. Maybe I should just quote myself so people get the point. Not sure if the man vibes are getting in the way of your ability to read. If you don't need it, don't use it.

I have had my camera 9 months. I am no professional. Though I study and read a lot and I know a pretty decent amount I still consider myself a novice. I practice almost every single day. I am not trying to appear superior. But the op wants lighting to shoot his child. Since you don't shoot children or even people perhaps you aren't the best one to take advice from.

"they are candids!" By definition, that precludes placing the subject in a certain position to optimize the light. That is why I used flash.. to get a good shot, no matter what the conditions are, and no matter how my subject is placed! Does that make sense? If I had not used flash, she would have been fried, the background would have been fried.

 

[cgipson1]

Stradawhovious, would you mind sharing the link to your flickr? It isn't in your signature. I would love to see some of your awesome flash work (on people). Since charlie has already submitted his best work

That is not my best work.. those are merely a few of the very few people shots I have. I don't shoot people for the same reason I don't shoot newborns.. I have no interest in them!

I don't see any awesome work from you in my chosen area of photography.. correct? Or do you even shoot macro?

It sounds like you are being a bit catty and superior... so I will say that I would be amazed if you can post anything that is even equal to the shots I did post.. and they are basically my version of snapshots, as they are candids.

I'm not talking crap about your work. You do awesome work and I have commented on how much I like your work. But seriously, why did you use flash in that first image taken in full sun. You didn't need to. You had a crap ton of light (you said yourself). You could have positioned yourself or your subject differently so flash was not needed. Plus the portraits you posted seem rather flat (from the flash). That is all I am saying. Maybe I should just quote myself so people get the point. Not sure if the man vibes are getting in the way of your ability to read. If you don't need it, don't use it.

I have had my camera 9 months. I am no professional. Though I study and read a lot and I know a pretty decent amount I still consider myself a novice. I practice almost every single day. I am not trying to appear superior. But the op wants lighting to shoot his child. Since you don't shoot children or even people perhaps you aren't the best one to take advice from.

Maybe you are right.. I only shot children and people professionally for seven years.. but that doesn't count, right? I can promise you I have shot more people, newborns and children than you have even actuated shutters!

 

[o hey tyler]

You really seem to have a bias against flash... do you even use flash?

based on photos I have seen.. most "Natural Light" photographers don't have a friggin clue! lol! (and they don't know how to use flash either! WOW!)

Cool.. but I made my living with for about seven years... little bit of difference there!

And not really even worth arguing about really, is it!

My reading comprehension skills are relatively high...

I only shot children and people professionally for seven years.. but that doesn't count, right? I can promise you I have shot more people, newborns and children than you have even actuated shutters!

I won't be responding further.. as the hardheaded'ness of some people cannot be overcome!

It sounds like you are being a bit catty and superior...

It sounds like you are being a bit catty and superior.

 

[MLeeK]

The OP (not directly quoted) 'most (good) newborn photos he sees use flash'. I was simply trying to explain to the op that this isn't true.

I'd like to see the stats on that please. Link?

Why would you want to use studio lighting if you COULD use natural light. That is all I'm saying people. Is it that hard to comprehend my point?? Learn how to look for and use natural light.

Ummmm.... Because in a lot of cases it gives you better light?

Nobody is saying not to learn how to use natural light. Nobody.

All that the people you are arguing with are saying is that flash will allow you to control your light more than relying solely on natural..... which is fickle at best.

Let me ask you this. What do you do when you need to do a shoot in the evening? Or any other time for that matter when the natural light through your large pane window isn't perfect. God forbid it's ever dark due to clouds, raining, or otherwise not the perfect time of day.

Natural light isn't always on your photography schedule. What do you suggest then? Incandescent?

Well I am not sure what 'stat's you want me to post. The op said 'the best newborn pics are done with flash'. I said there are plenty gorgeous newborn photos that are naturally lit. What, you want examples?

If you don't have the natural light, yes use flash. I never said not to. But I think a lot of people here are too stuck on artificial light. Like you NEED that to get a good photo. I am just saying it isn't true. You don't need it. Yes it has its place and can create awesome photos, but why use it if you don't need it. Is it really that hard to understand?

I'm not sure why everyone is jumping down my throat because I suggested to the op to use a window light to photograph his own newborn.

So... we are arguing just to argue? Natural light can work. Flash can work a whole lot more.
The OP can either buy a flash and get help down that road or he can stick to the natural light and get help down that road.
He's already seen that he can get natural light portraits by example here.
Pretty sure no one said he HAD to buy a flash to get results. We've been helping him with what he asked for in this thread. FLASH.

So, again. Arguing just to argue?

 

[cgipson1]

You really seem to have a bias against flash... do you even use flash?

based on photos I have seen.. most "Natural Light" photographers don't have a friggin clue! lol! (and they don't know how to use flash either! WOW!)

My reading comprehension skills are relatively high...

It sounds like you are being a bit catty and superior...

It sounds like you are being a bit catty and superior.

Why are you on my case again, Tyler? I am sure that you can read well enough to REALLY see the point here.. or is playing devils advocate just your thing?

 

[paigew]

"they are candids!" By definition, that precludes placing the subject in a certain position to optimize the light. That is why I used flash.. to get a good shot, no matter what the conditions are, and no matter how my subject is placed! Does that make sense? If I had not used flash, she would have been fried, the background would have been fried.

It doesn't matter that they are candids. You can still asses and use natural light so that flash isn't needed. Its all about learning to shoot in less than ideal circumstances. But maybe you haven't done that...because you always have your flash...

 

[o hey tyler]

I mainly just enjoy calling out hypocrisy. Carry on.

 

[paigew]

[

So... we are arguing just to argue? Natural light can work. Flash can work a whole lot more.
The OP can either buy a flash and get help down that road or he can stick to the natural light and get help down that road.
He's already seen that he can get natural light portraits by example here.
Pretty sure no one said he HAD to buy a flash to get results. We've been helping him with what he asked for in this thread. FLASH.

So, again. Arguing just to argue?

yes they are arguing to argue. They refuse to admit that nice photos can be taken with natural light and you do not NEED flash to take nice newborn photos of your own baby in your own home.

 

[cgipson1]

"they are candids!" By definition, that precludes placing the subject in a certain position to optimize the light. That is why I used flash.. to get a good shot, no matter what the conditions are, and no matter how my subject is placed! Does that make sense? If I had not used flash, she would have been fried, the background would have been fried.

It doesn't matter that they are candids. You can still asses and use natural light so that flash isn't needed. Its all about learning to shoot in less than ideal circumstances. But maybe you haven't done that...because you always have your flash...

Sure... uh huh!

 

[cgipson1]

I won't be responding further.. as the hardheaded'ness of some people cannot be overcome!

 

[o hey tyler]

[Condescending remark followed by an exclamation point]

 

[tirediron]

and again we hear the "Clang" of a thread slamming shut! It's a nice day folks, go outside and take a picture. By CANDLELIGHT!