I want to learn about light

[imagemaker46]

I have not got a clue what you see. I only know what I see when I'm looking through a camera and as long as I can translate that into an image, then it works for me.

 

[photoguy99]

Do you see that imagemaker is a professional sports photographer working quickly, efficiently, on the scene in a context where 'needs fill' is an idiotic non sequitur?

 

[Village Idiot]

Do you see that imagemaker is a professional sports photographer working quickly, efficiently, on the scene in a context where 'needs fill' is an idiotic non sequitur?

Not really. And in unfavorable lighting conditions, why would a TTL flash on camera be out of the question? I use them outside for events so I don't get photos where 90% of the photo is blown out and underexposed. Lots of other people do the same. It doesn't destroy the photo. Fill doesn't have to be used to give you a perfect exposure but can be used to give us a better overall photo as we perceive it vs. what a camera can capture. And commenting about using flash then saying you never use flash just shows something...

One thing to remember about using a flash, when you use a flash the original image that you saw will disappear when fire the flash. The image with the nice light vanishes.
I've had lots of people say how their pictures never look as good after the flash has been used, it is because the flash has been used. Once you start to understand light a little more, start to see how a flash can enhance your images, not change them.

Sometimes you can't get that image that you see without a flash and it's because of the limited dynamic range of a camera sensor vs. what the eye can see and translate to an image you perceive. An image that you see as balanced could show up with certain portions blown out or underexposed because of the dynamic range where as a flash can be used to recreate the scene as we perceive it and not as a camera has the limited ability to by itself.

With enough knowledge and experience, a photo that uses strobes can be made to look like it was 100% naturally lit.

 

[photoguy99]

That is actually wrong. A strobed photo almost never looks literally natural. A single light setup can get close, but the falloff is still wrong without some pretty careful post work.

With a light touch the average viewer will accept it as naturalistic. We're so used to multiple lights that we don't notice gently applied fill and it reads as natural. So in some sense it looks natural. But not a literal sense.

Sometimes you can sell your fill as a naturally occurring reflection, perhaps.

It's not, though, generally all that natural looking. What it is, is compliant with contemporary standards of photographic lighting. Which change constantly.

Ideas of what looks natural and proper in photos are local to venue and time. Cross an ocean, wait ten years, and all those immutable undeniable basic truths, those objective realities, will all be wrong.

Not sure how you're supposed to fill when you're using a 300 to shoot a speaker who's talking right now, and could wrap up at literally any moment. You're gonna need some really long arms, a psychic assistant, or super-speed.

 

[Village Idiot]

That is actually wrong. A strobed photo almost never looks literally natural. A single light setup can get close, but the falloff is still wrong without some pretty careful post work.

With a light touch the average viewer will accept it as naturalistic. We're so used to multiple lights that we don't notice gently applied fill and it reads as natural. So in some sense it looks natural. But not a literal sense.

Sometimes you can sell your fill as a naturally occurring reflection, perhaps.

It's not, though, generally all that natural looking. What it is, is compliant with contemporary standards of photographic lighting. Which change constantly.

Ideas of what looks natural and proper in photos are local to venue and time. Cross an ocean, wait ten years, and all those immutable undeniable basic truths, those objective realities, will all be wrong.

Not sure how you're supposed to fill when you're using a 300 to shoot a speaker who's talking right now, and could wrap up at literally any moment. You're gonna need some really long arms, a psychic assistant, or super-speed.

You don't have to use a flash for everything of course, just know when to. And even then, the power of the modern Speedlight is a very nice thing. The Canon 600EX is rated at something like f/1.4 ISO100 and 190' zoomed to 200mm. You can finagle the setting for more juice or adjust as needed. I've seen photographer shooting basketball in gymnasiums with bounce flash and it works.

And my opinion differs from yours. There are time when you can use flash in a photograph and the viewer will have no idea that a flash was used. Hence, it looks like natural lighting.

 

[photoguy99]

Yes. It can read as naturalistic. An unsophisticated or inattentive viewer (I.e. almost everyone) will have no idea flash was used.

That's not quite the same as looking natural.

 

[Village Idiot]

Yes. It can read as naturalistic. An unsophisticated or inattentive viewer (I.e. almost everyone) will have no idea flash was used.

That's not quite the same as looking natural.

And why can't a flash look like natural light? You can position a flash in a way that reflects where a real ambient light source comes from with modifiers to create that light source look. Therefore a flash can be made to look natural.

 

[photoguy99]

I believe I said that as well... So we're in total agreement?

 

[imagemaker46]

I've been shooting sports a long time, and rarely do I ever see any strobe lit sports that look natural in any way, you can tell what is lit and what is available light. Personally I prefer using the light that is there, it is how I grew up shooting, it is what I know best. Yes you can add some fill flash to an image, but you can still tell that a flash was used. In the case of the images I posted, if I had of been in a position to use a flash they would not have looked anything like what I saw with using a strong back light. They would look like crap.

Learning to use available light takes time, some people will never get it right, they may produce some nice images from time to time, but will run back to a flash, it's easier to put a flash on a camera and simply record an image, this is how the majority of people shoot, they just want an image.

I really don't care if someone wants to use a flash, it's not something I use. I shoot with long lenses. The one thing I was always taught from the very beginning.

"If you can see it, you can shoot it"

 

[photoguy99]

You know what, I'm wrong.

I'm arguing with what I imagine you meant, not with what you said. Yes, flash can be used to create a completely natural looking photo. What I am objecting is that it almost never actually is. Which isn't what you said.

It frequently comes close enough to fool most people who mostly don't care.

But what you actually said is completely correct.

I apologize.

 

[shmne]

How about we get back on track in this thread?

Village Idiot follows a mentality I also share, light right and no one will know better. This is one school of thought and will give you the most flexibility as a photographer in terms of creating the image you want. This is usually for artistic or commercial advertisement work and sometimes intentionally looks unnatural, sometimes looks natural, and sometimes a mix of both. A photographer experienced with light will never make you question the light.

imagemaker46 / photoguy99 come from a "work with what you have" mentality. This is great for quicker moving professions like sports photography or band photography where capturing the moment is more important than capturing your own snowflake. You still have some control like where you are shooting from but generally that is it, so it is up to the photographer to properly capture that moment as best they can. This often requires being in the right spot and reading the scene well enough to know that eventually the stars will align and get what you want.

Figuring out what kind of photography you love the most often will take you on one of these two paths more than the other.

 

[imagemaker46]

I do move around to use the available light to my advantage every time I shoot, this comes from seeing what I want and recording the image. I grew up with my Dad showing me though his own work how to use the light that is there. I have shot pro sports with strobes and hate how the images look. Personally I think they all look fake. Being able to really understand light is the backbone to photography, without that understanding work will suffer in some areas.

I work with a brilliant glamour photographer, I can't touch the work he does with his lighting, he has mastered studio work and setting up lights outside and shooting. I was surprised a few weeks ago when he said that he has trouble with available light. I asked if I could work with him on some shoots, he said that I have a greater understanding of light than he does and just learning how to set up lights is the easy part. We'll see what happens in the near future. I have no problem setting up lights to do basic head shots or portraits, but my experience on the glamour shoots is limited to a few swim suit calendars, I thought they looked pretty good until I saw his work.

 

[photoguy99]

Actually I use artificial light myself quite a lot. But I'm rarely after a naturalistic look with it.

 

[TamiAz]

I'm in the process of learning to use my speedlight and modifiers.. I tend to browse youtube for videos, I love creative live. In fact, I purchased a lighting class by Mark Wallace on Creative Live. Very informative!! The best thing to do is to get your speedlight out and play around with it..read, practice, watch videos, practice..practice, practice, practice... Have fun!!

 

[pgriz]

The very big difference between "natural" light (perhaps calling it ambient is more appropriate), and what you get with flash, is the rapid light fall-off that you get when the light source is close to the subject. The second characteristic is the apparent size of the light source, with flashes usually producing a much more defined specular appearance (unless they are well diffused in an umbrella, softbox or bounced off a large surface). These two characteristics make the flash image more contrasty, and tend to separate the subject from its foreground/background (unless additional flash units are used to light the background, etc.).