To Flash or not to flash

[Weaving Wax]

I perfer natural light over everything else...but I also have never used an off camera flash. Maybe I'll invest in one when I get the money. I'm still trying to figure out my camera..

 

[mysteryscribe]

I know this dates me, but there was a time you weren't considered a real photographer if you didn't know how to use artificial light.

Guys who had to make outdoor portraits were the true amatuers of the business. Why hell anybody with a brownie could shoot an outdoor picture. A real was made in the stuido with a Rembrant background and Strobe lights.

All that has changed now wonder why that happened.

 

[W.Smith]

Mmm yes, true. The shadow is much less offensive if it's cast low...

Not in all cases! Nose shadows that cross the lips are a pain, imo...

 

[markc]

I know this dates me, but there was a time you weren't considered a real photographer if you didn't know how to use artificial light.

Guys who had to make outdoor portraits were the true amatuers of the business. Why hell anybody with a brownie could shoot an outdoor picture. A real was made in the stuido with a Rembrant background and Strobe lights.

All that has changed now wonder why that happened.

Maybe because it was a narrow minded view, and such things change with time. There was a time when you weren't a real photographer when you shot on that skinny little stuff called 35mm.

For me, type of light isn't a defining mark. Knowing how to use light, which ever it is, is the important part.

 

[mysteryscribe]

Let me say this about the narrow minded thing....

Maybe that is true and maybe we were right... I never met a studio photographer who couldn't make a decent outdoor or natural light portrait, but I sure have, over the last few years, spoken to a lot of photographers in real life who have no idea what the color temperature of a strobe is. Go figure....

By the way I tossed a couple of thousand words I wrote on this subject before I shortened it. Then there is the dummy down effect to take into consideration.

We do agree about one thing know how to use your tools. A carpernter who can use a hammer but not a saw is a darn poor carpenter.

 

[novelle72]

You guys are killing me........LOL . To light or not to light that is the question. Should I buy a flash and start learning how to use it or is another piece of equipment more important? I am looking at the FL-36 for what it is worth.
Thanks,

 

[mysteryscribe]

ask a dozen photographers their opinion on anything and get two hundred answers and a lot of hedging.

 

[novelle72]

I understand. I want to have it if I need it, but don't want it to sit in the bag either. Maybe this is a better question: What would you consider a good starter "tool set" for a new enthusiast?

 

[markc]

I'd say learn to use what you have now before spending more money. The tendency is to try to get better by buying equipment, but that doesn't really work. Practice is what gets you there. My opinion is that you wouldn't make good use of a flash until you know more about photography in general. I'd just take a lot of pictures with what equipment you have now. Once you get further along, you'll have a better idea of where you want to go with it. You don't need anything other than a camera and lens to start with.

 

[novelle72]

:thumbup: Cool.

 

[benhasajeep44 43]

I understand. I want to have it if I need it, but don't want it to sit in the bag either. Maybe this is a better question: What would you consider a good starter "tool set" for a new enthusiast?

If you are going just do snapshots, indoor house shots, or close up flower shots. The onboard flash will be fine. The flash is fairly close to the lens too. That means higher chance of redeye (light bouncing off the back of the eye of the subject).

Your onboard flash has a guide # of 13. That would be 13 meters or roughly 40' of coverage (using longer focal length on lens). Not very strong. Now their smallest fl-20 flash only has a guide of 20 so the cheapest one is not much better (about 1/3 more).

Olympus has 2 other flashes the FL-36 and FL-50. I could not find specs on the 36 but going by the other two it has a gn of 36. And the FL-50 has a gn of 50. Again that would be meters of coverage at the cameras lowest ISO setting using a longer focal length setting (say 85mm on the lens).

Now you can also get an off brand flash, and might be a little cheaper.

But before you go and buy one. Use the camera for a while and the flash some. If you then think you need one then start investigating your options.

 

[RMThompson]

I don't think there is a clear answer here, you have to do what makes you feel good.

I am no expert, something of an amateur myself, but look at my work:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/rmthompson

All of my stuff is shot with available light, (with a point and shoot Canon A610 no less) with the exception of the model on the first page! No I didn't use a strobe or big expensive lighting kits... I used a Wal Mart floor lamp with three bulbs.

So get yourself one of these:

And learn on it before you get the expensive equipment. I personally like using the "REVEAL" bran bulbs, as they give off a more natural light, and get the brightest you can get.

Then on the other side of your subject, instead of getting and expensive secondary light, get one of these in the automotive section of Wal mart:

(not the car, the sun shade!)

It bounces light well, and will eliminate SOME of the harsh shadows.

Oh and if you want to use a nifty background like I did, get a cheap 5 dollar black sheet...

Later on you can go out and get all the professional equipment that does this, but for now, do what you can, expirement.

Someone told me that if you learn how to take the shots you want WITHOUT all the equipment first, it makes you that much better of a photograher.

Cheers!

 

[mysteryscribe]

there is a lot to be said for the last persons post. There days with digital cameras and post processing light can be anything and still be corrected. Such was not always the case.

I personally use outdoor floodlight and bare bulbs in my studio but im not shooting people anymore. I find it more convenient to carry a strobe to my grandson's birthday parties than the studio lights. All things have a place in the craft today and like I said earlier as a dozen photogs and get 200 answers all have some merit I amight add.

 

[Tiberius]

As an appendix Digital can't fix EVERYTHING. You can compensate for underexposure, but blown highlights are lost forever.

 

[fmw]

Let me say this about the narrow minded thing....

Maybe that is true and maybe we were right... I never met a studio photographer who couldn't make a decent outdoor or natural light portrait, but I sure have, over the last few years, spoken to a lot of photographers in real life who have no idea what the color temperature of a strobe is. Go figure....

5500 degrees Kelvin. Sometimes I think I'm a throwback to an earlier time. I can't begin to tell you the problems I've had to overcome over the years shooting flourescent lit office and warehouse interiors. Now auto white balance takes care of it without the photographer even knowing it is being taken care of.

Studio shooters are used to controlling light so controlling available light is a natural and normal thing for them. That's why they seem to do pretty well dealing with available light.

There is no doubt the technology has changed photography quite a bit. I'm often surprised by the questions and answers I read here on the forum. So much of the basic photographic skills has been automated that things like color temperature aren't even something modern photographers even think about. We used to agonize over it. I still have color temperature meter. Maybe I should list it on Ebay.