No one likes my flash photography

[Derrel]

These shots really do remind me of the middle of the flashbulb photography era, when people were using single flash units, often with a butt-kicking', thumb-sized flashbulb in a rather deep, polished parabolic reflector. I've seen quite a few indoor family photos from the era before multi-light flash was common. Flashbulbs used to be rather expensive, and they are ONE-use only and always have been. Computing the Guide Number for a multi-flash setup was beyond the skill set of many people, and there were no flash meters, and TTL light metering was 20 to 25 years in the future. In the 1930's and to the very end of the 1950's, people shot a LOT of single-flashbulb shots. Usually direct, as in not bounced lighting.

I tell you what: if she were dressed in say, a Shirley Temple type dress, with white tights and old-style shoes, in any of a dozen classic "poses for little girls", this lighting approach would look delightfully retro, and wonderful. If she were seated at a small table with some props on it, like say an old GE electric fan and a vase of flowers, and looking over the top of a kid's book she was reading, this strong, dramatic lighting would look good.

If this same,exact lighting were used on say a 35 year-old woman in elegant evening wear, the effect would seem very much different; this kind of deep shadow, lower-key, dramatic, single-source flash lighting is verrrrry old-school, and it's just not what people today are used to seeing. I recall the "Fifty Years Ago Today in Popular Photography Magazine" columns from five or six years back...LOTS of kid pics in homes, shot this way. Lots of all kinds of subjects, lighted this way.

This lighting looks like old-fashioned, 16- to 20-inch "pan" or "parabolic" lighting that was popular decades ago. If the background were a painted old master's canvas, or a light-painted wall or a cute set, this could work great today, but it's not a modern, popular way to light a little girl.

 

[astroNikon]

First I'd say facebook is a terrible gauge of photographic competence.

...................................

99% of the people on my friends list couldn't tell the difference between their a-hole and an aperture.

Technically your @$$hole is an aperture.

That was en-lightening information ... ok, not really.

 

[snerd]

These shots really do remind me of the middle of the flashbulb photography era, when people were using single flash units, often with a butt-kicking', thumb-sized flashbulb in a rather deep, polished parabolic reflector. I've seen quite a few indoor family photos from the era before multi-light flash was common. Flashbulbs used to be rather expensive, and they are ONE-use only and always have been. Computing the Guide Number for a multi-flash setup was beyond the skill set of many people, and there were no flash meters, and TTL light metering was 20 to 25 years in the future. In the 1930's and to the very end of the 1950's, people shot a LOT of single-flashbulb shots. Usually direct, as in not bounced lighting.

I tell you what: if she were dressed in say, a Shirley Temple type dress, with white tights and old-style shoes, in any of a dozen classic "poses for little girls", this lighting approach would look delightfully retro, and wonderful. If she were seated at a small table with some props on it, like say an old GE electric fan and a vase of flowers, and looking over the top of a kid's book she was reading, this strong, dramatic lighting would look good.

If this same,exact lighting were used on say a 35 year-old woman in elegant evening wear, the effect would seem very much different; this kind of deep shadow, lower-key, dramatic, single-source flash lighting is verrrrry old-school, and it's just not what people today are used to seeing. I recall the "Fifty Years Ago Today in Popular Photography Magazine" columns from five or six years back...LOTS of kid pics in homes, shot this way. Lots of all kinds of subjects, lighted this way.

This lighting looks like old-fashioned, 16- to 20-inch "pan" or "parabolic" lighting that was popular decades ago. If the background were a painted old master's canvas, or a light-painted wall or a cute set, this could work great today, but it's not a modern, popular way to light a little girl.

Are you perhaps hinting that I like this so much because I'm old and remember the old days?!



























Of course that's why!!!!!!

:lmao:

 

[vintagesnaps]

The lighting seems rather harsh for a photo of a little girl, and the background being black doesn't give the viewer any frame of reference about where she is or what she's looking at. The way she's positioned seems a little awkward the way she's sitting and looking up.

People might respond more to photos of kids that are smiling or looking at the camera; or if they're looking away from the camera it might help to see what they're looking at or be able to see a scene there to imagine what they might be seeing.

This makes me think of a photo I took of my nephew that was in B&W with a black/gray background that I shot using existing room light and candlelight; it has a less stark look I think. Something like this might work better in B&W or in a different outfit or with different poses. I think photography takes learning and practicing and trying different things to see what works best for you.

 

[ArsenPhoto]

I personally like both; however, I believe that they need some work. My suggestion would be to decrease the saturation in the second picture. You could do the same towards the first picture but black/white would work as well. Overall, I do agree with most that FB is not a place to obtain any feedback towards your photography.

 

[Derrel]

For snerd: http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00c/00cLqb-545208384.jpg

60 years ago from 2014, at the tail end of the Speed Graphic and parabolic + flashbulb era...

As I recall, the flashbulb itself was invented in 1928, and premiered in 1929--at almost the exact, same time as the first Rolleiflex twin-lens reflex rollfilm camera hit the market.

 

[AggieBecky]

Thanks everyone for the input! I usually shoot in natural light so shooting with flash is fairly new to me and I had no idea that I was shooting in an "old fashion" way, although that would explain why my photos aren't gaining any FB popularity. I took this picture of my little girl watching TV and I intentionally underexposed ( and burned out) the background because it was in taken in my house and I didn't want the background distractions in my picture. I do need to learn to shoot with multiple flashes but clearly doing so in my house, without the use of a backdrop, isn't the place to take such a shot.

 

[manaheim]

People don't tend to like overly dramatic shots of kids, I've found. I did one with a snoot of my girls and I love it, but I must admit it's a little creepy.

Facebook is NOT a way to judge what is good photography.

 

[Joefbs]

In summary - One light doesn't cut it these days, which is why pro photographers do portrait shots with 5 or more lights - main, fill, hair, accent (kicker), rim, background.

I have seen a lot of portraits that are really good with one light. At least that what they would have me believe.

 

[pixmedic]

one speedlight.

DSC_2014_2001 by pixmedic, on Flickr

 

[pgriz]

First I'd say facebook is a terrible gauge of photographic competence.

...................................

99% of the people on my friends list couldn't tell the difference between their a-hole and an aperture.

Technically your @$$hole is an aperture.

:blushing:

That technically just blew my mind. Never thought about my a-hole in such a way.

Which opens up a new way of considering things. f/1.4 means that you probably need a diaper, and f/128 means that you're severely constipated.

 

[gsgary]

In summary - One light doesn't cut it these days, which is why pro photographers do portrait shots with 5 or more lights - main, fill, hair, accent (kicker), rim, background.

Rankin shoots a lot with one light, the best used to shoot with just one

 

[Braineack]

if the people on FB are the ones that will pay you to shoot for them, I'd say it's a great gauge...

one light doesn't have to be harsh/dramatic:


David - 5 by The Braineack, on Flickr


David - 6 by The Braineack, on Flickr

 

[Stradawhovious]

What is facebook?

Follow up question now that I've googled facebook... Why would you care what anyone else there thinks of your photos?

People are sheep.

Banana hammock.

 

[Robin Usagani]

harsh narrow light, black backdrop. Little girl.

don't really work for me.

LOL! Does this work?