Flash photos

[cgipson1]

I disagree with this also! YES.. everyone should learn to shoot in manual! But until they learn it, it is slow, and babies aren't! You have split seconds to capture expression and such on newborns... that you will miss if you are messing around in Manual. Aperture Priority is the way most PRO's shoot.. and there is a reason for that. It is fast, and it is accurate. For high speed needs, shutter priority is best.. but that is for sports, not newborns. All learning manual does is teach you the relationship between shutter, aperture and ISO in a way that is easier to see, and to learn. Flash.. yes, use manual... anything else, only if you're are trying learn manual!

If you are suggesting the OP learn flash, then I don't see why you disagree with Paige. Using flash in manual mode is the only way to do it. As I read it, she was suggesting that they familiarize themselves with manual mode before using flash.

No.. she was suggesting using manual for "NATURAL LIGHT PHOTOGRAPHY!" Read it again... she says that the OP shouldn't learn flash.. that Natural light is better!

if she got a 1.8 she could shoot at 3.2 which is plenty narrow for a novice. When beginners use flash usually it looks horrible. Beginners using natural light generally looks better. I'm thinking if it was my newborn I would want them to look better

do you have a window? That is what I would use You don't NEED all that stuff to take a decent pic. Especially since it is your baby and you will have all the time in the world to wait around for perfect light! Rather than spending $$$ on lighting I would invest in a nice lens with ability to use a wide aperture.

These aren't the best examples in the world but I have only done one newborn shoot at it was months ago. Taken using window light:

Natural (AMBIENT) light is nice when you have it.. but what about shots at night? Or on a really cloudy day, when it is DIM inside? Flash allows shots ANYTIME!

If it is rainy she can do it the next day...its her own newborn. I think it is so backwards for people to try and learn flash/studio lighting before they master natural light. How do you know what lighting you are trying to create if you haven't experienced shooting in that situation?

 

[cgipson1]

Flash stops moving subjects better and sharper than shutter speed ever will, off camera or not!

Yes but to get the subject to stay where you want so that the flash hits them. It is just not practical for the type of photography I currently shoot. I look forward to learning off camera flash sometime in the near future. My whole point is that you do not 'need' to know studio lighting to take newborn photos of your own baby. It is far more important to spend these months learning how to take a photo.

I have yet to see a NEWBORN move that fast!

 

[cgipson1]

As for my 'credentials', I have a speedlight, and have watched neil van niekerk webinar about it. I experiment with it, but not nearly as much as I would like to. I have gotten shots I love that I couldn't have gotten without it. Are those my favorite photographs...no. I am excited to learn studio lighting in the future but I do not think it should be the first thing you learn.

Cool.. but I made my living with for about seven years... little bit of difference there! 90 percent of the shots I take have flash... I don't use it on landscapes for hopefully obvious reasons!

charlie, that obviously wasn't a brag about my mad flash skills. Congrats to you for 'making your living' by using flash. Can I see some of your newborn/baby/toddler shots since that is what the op is wanting to shoot?

Gee. I haven't shot any in about 20 years.. but guess what, the LIGHT hasn't changed! It still behaves now like it did then!

 

[cgipson1]

Where did I put words into your mouth?

okay you got me. I went a little overboard .

Anyway it doesn't matter. I am just trying to prove a point to the OP that there are plenty of extremely talented photographers (even ones specializing in newborns) that mainly use natural light. You do not need flash. You can get gorgeous photos without it if you learn how to use your camera. Why is everyone so against natural light?? That is what I want to know.

Yea.. with diffusers, modifiers, reflectors and a large staff to handle all that gear! That way they can shoot in midday sun and still make it look good! You don't get anyone that goes out in really harsh light, and shoots in that harsh light... they use the shade, fill flash, OC flash, whatever it takes to get GOOD pictures..... plus they have LOTS of years of experience.

Without that experience and the gear... you are very limited when and how you can shoot.

Flash you can do anytime, anywhere...

 

[cgipson1]

Its not that at all. I want to love flash.

Then learn how to use it. It will never look natural if you keep it mounted to the camera.

I plan to. But (my point) I want to master my basics first. Not master flash and not know anything about composition, or camera settings. Crawl before you walk people.

To me... good composition with lousy light looks worse then poor composition with good light.

 

[sactown024]

I think everyone is missing the point, I am not trying to master flash in a week nor am I just getting a flash setup strictly for the baby, I just want to learn it in general and thought since the baby is coming now is a good time.

I always shoot my camera in full manual and although I have a lot to learn some people are acting like I never used a camera before. I am sure flash is hard to learn but I need to start sometime right?

I personally think flash looks better than natural and that's why I chose to make a thread on how to learn it, if someone else like natural then fine, nothing wrong with that.

Thanks for all the insight and recommendations

And for the record I am the Dad, not the mom

 

[cgipson1]

I think everyone is missing the point, I am not trying to master flash in a week nor am I just getting a flash setup strictly for the baby, I just want to learn it in general and thought since the baby is coming now is a good time.

I always shoot my camera in full manual and although I have a lot to learn some people are acting like I never used a camera before. I am sure flash is hard to learn but I need to start sometime right?

I personally think flash looks better than natural and that's why I chose to make a thread on how to learn it, if someone else like natural then fine, nothing wrong with that.

Thanks for all the insight and recommendations

And for the record I am the Dad, not the mom

Sorry about the drama... If you need help, all you have to do is ask!

 

[kundalini]

my novice guess would be:

Thanks for playing along, I mean that sincerely. Part of the plan was for you to try and deconstruct the lighting in each image. Being able to see the light is a most valued skillset, whether you are a naturalist or a strobist.

1) flash. I think it looks unnatural. A completely lit foreground with a dark (night) background. The light just ends , there is no depth or light wrapping around the subject. Not sure how you can fix this, this is the main reason I don't like flash. (really hoping this is flash here and I'm not going to be embarrassed later )

Of course it's flash. However, I will say that lighting up your subject and having an underexposed background is a look that I prefer over having the background blown out. Well, more times than not. I'm not sure of your statement of "no depth or light wrapping around the subject", because what I see is a good separation of the subject from the background. So for my wants, there is no fix. I would hasten a guess that a vast majority of photographers here strive for that very end. That's why we buy the f/1.4 primes and f/2.8 zooms...... to separate the subject from the background.

Here's the setup shot.....

2) no flash; you have some depth/shadows although they seem a little harsh. Main light source (sun? window?) coming from image left. I suppose you could have bounced flash here to try and trick me. I really think using a stuffed animal is completely different than using a person. Fuzz is not the same as skin.

Okay, so the scene was backlit by a harsh setting summer sun at about 67° camera left. I used a 24" softbox camera left at ~45° for Main and a bare bulb flash next to camera for Fill.

BTW, I strongly suggest to use an inanimate object for practicing, particularly with flash. Live models will get sooooo bored. I happened upon my pink monkey, Winston.


Here's the setup shot.....

3) flash. Looks nice! I don't have the pleasure of having my models 'hold still' in order to use off camera flash (which I am guessing this is)

She was a 15yo with plans to be with her friends soon. I had less than 5 minutes to shoot, probably only 10 frames shot. That’s why there is no setup shot. And this was the red herring. Knowing my time constraints, I put her in open shade with the sun at ~110-120° camera right with the dark green foliage about 15’ behind her. I got her mother to hold a silver & white reflector on camera right.



It’s all about light.

 

[sactown024]

Just out of curiosity and way off subject, what is the big difference between a cheap flash trigger like this:
Amazon.com: CowboyStudio NPT-04 4 Channel Wireless Trigger for External Speelights with 1 Trigger and 2 Receivers (NPT-04+extra receiver): Camera & Photo

and a nice pock wizzard like this:
PocketWizard Plus II Auto Sensing Smart Transceiver 801-125

 

[Stradawhovious]

Just out of curiosity and way off subject, what is the big difference between a cheap flash trigger like this:
Amazon.com: CowboyStudio NPT-04 4 Channel Wireless Trigger for External Speelights with 1 Trigger and 2 Receivers (NPT-04+extra receiver): Camera & Photo

and a nice pock wizzard like this:
PocketWizard Plus II Auto Sensing Smart Transceiver 801-125

There is no contest. The cheap triggers only have a range of about 30ft, and cant see around corners. The pocket wizards have a much better range, and dont have the same issues with needing a direct line of sight. They can also use TTL wirelessly, can act as transmitter, or receiver, and each one costs about $170 more than the cheap transmitters, and you need one for the camera, and one for each flash.

Here's the rub. I have the cheap transmitter and receiver, and really have yet to be slowed down by it. Then again, im nota pro,so take that for what its worth.

 

[sactown024]

So if I got a pocket wizard that $170 I need one for each flash and camera?

The amazon link was $30 for 2 receivers and a transmitter, haha I guess you prolly get what you pay for

 

[Stradawhovious]

So if I got a pocket wizard that $170 I need one for each flash and camera?

The amazon link was $30 for 2 receivers and a transmitter, haha I guess you prolly get what you pay for

Yep. That is all correct. However, I've been using the cheap ones for over a year now, and they've been fine.

YMMV, but its an inexpensive way to get into the world of OCF.

 

[Derrel]

Just out of curiosity and way off subject, what is the big difference between a cheap flash trigger like this:
Amazon.com: CowboyStudio NPT-04 4 Channel Wireless Trigger for External Speelights with 1 Trigger and 2 Receivers (NPT-04+extra receiver): Camera & Photo

and a nice pock wizzard like this:
PocketWizard Plus II Auto Sensing Smart Transceiver 801-125

In one scenario, one obtains a Chinese-made cheapie that is "somewhat reliable" as long as the unit is within 50 feet and direct line of sight to its receiver, and has about a 60% chance of lasting three years before it suddenly goes +!+$ up in the middle of the biggest shoot of the year. In the other scenario, one buys the product, and wit works flawlessly for 10,000 flash shots every basketball season for two years, then continues to work on a weekly basis shooting family pics, firing from 1/2 of a mile away each and every frame.

 

[cgipson1]

I'm sure all are good to ha
​

Not really! One is 100% reliable... the other isn't!

 

[o hey tyler]

No.. she was suggesting using manual for "NATURAL LIGHT PHOTOGRAPHY!" Read it again... she says that the OP shouldn't learn flash.. that Natural light is better!

Maybe you should read that particular post again, she made no mention of natural light. Her other posts, yes. But not that one. As I read it, she is suggesting that they learn manual mode or at least get some mileage with it because it's an important part to flash photography. Critical to using flash, really.