what do these actually do?

sactown024 · Dec 4, 2012

I see people use them all the time, is there really that big of a difference beteen on camera flash and using one of these brackets that move it to the side a few inches?

custom-brackets_9512.jpg

brunerww · Dec 4, 2012

Yes - with indirect lighting, the light from the flash is less harsh and gives you better control of shadows. Here is a pretty good explanation with an example: Off-Camera Flash Portraits « RG's Digital Photography Tips

Cheers,

Bill

Helen B · Dec 4, 2012

There are a few reasons to use one of those brackets:

They make bounce (indirect) flash easier when you are switching between portrait and landscape orientation. The flash stays where it is and only the camera rotates. If the flash was on the camera shoe the flash position and direction changes as you rotate the camera. This is also very useful for direct flash - the source stays where it is instead of moving from above to the side, changing the light.

The flash is moved away from the lens axis, giving more modeling (shaping) to the light and the shadows it forms.

There is room for a small softbox or similar without obstructing the camera or the lens, so the effective source size can be larger, softening shadows.

brunerww said:
Yes - with indirect lighting, the light from the flash is less harsh and gives you better control of shadows. Here is a pretty good explanation with an example: Off-Camera Flash Portraits « RG's Digital Photography Tips

Cheers,

Bill

So the meaning of direct and indirect has changed? I missed that. What do we call the old meaning of direct and indirect? Direct lighting used to mean straight from the source to the object.

sactown024 · Dec 4, 2012

thanks, that makes sense.

bratkinson · Dec 4, 2012

One of the primary reasons I use a "simple" flash bracket (compared to the one pictured) is to prevent red-eye, in addition to eliminating many of the shadows common with single flash photography. On the bracket I use, a simple push of a button allows the flash to be moved to the grip-side of the camera for portrait shots, and still be above the lens where it needs to be. The same L-bracket mount used to attach the flash bracket also facilitates quick monopod and tripod mounting as well.

gsgary · Dec 4, 2012

They look stupid, there's no way you would see me walking round with one of those

Ysarex · Dec 4, 2012

Elaborating some on the points Helen made:

The bracket is a start -- an attempt to mediate a problem. It's not a complete solution, but at least it indicates the photog is trying.

The problem:

DON'T photograph people with a small light source. As Helen noted contrast is a function of the size of the light source. A light that is 1x2 inches produces extreme high contrast with dark crisp shadows. Those shadows and that level of contrast on a human face is just plain ugly.

DON"T photograph people with a light that is close to the lens. In most cases the light is then too low and may even be slightly below the subject. What's the number one lighting technique that makes Dracula look even scarier? Bring the light low. It's monster lighting because it's just plain ugly. Again as Helen noted moving the light away from the lens adds modeling to the subject's face and brings out their features. Then there's red eye which does a great job of topping off just plain ugly.

Just plain ugly + just plain ugly = really ugly light. Don't do that to people unless you're trying to make them look really ugly.

The alternatives are difficult. You have to get the light size larger and move it up and away from the lens. That's a tall order, but photographers do it. Fauxtographers activate the pop-up on their cameras, professional fauxtographers put a flash in the hot shoe.

Joe