What percentage of the time are you using flash?

[Josh66]

Total flash usage, subject matter aside - I'd give a generous estimate of 20%. It's probably less than that.

Stuff I shoot "for me", it's probably close to 60% - anything else, it's much lower.

 

[pixmedic]

ambient light is fine...when it is juuuuust right. when it isn't, you need flash.
There's an idea that floats around that you can make up for lack of sufficient light by increasing the cameras ISO.
This is only a half truth, especially for people photography, because while increasing the ISO will help the overall exposure, it does absolutely nothing for shadows, like "raccoon eyes".

even if you CAN take good photos using only "natural light", why would you purposely limit yourself by not having flashes on hand and learning how to use them?
by limiting yourself to ONLY ambient light, you are completely reliant on specific times of the day, and certain weather condition in order to take your pictures.
I know, I know....just use a reflector....brilliant, right up until some clouds roll in. knowing how to use flashes is awesome. off camera flash? awesomer. it opens up huge avenues of improvement for your photography. No, flash isn't necessary all of the time. maybe its not even necessary MOST of the time....
but when you DO need it, why not have it available with the knowledge and experience to put it to proper use?

personally....I think being a photographer, especially a people photographer, and not knowing how to use a flash (or three) is like being a photographer and not knowing how to use a zoom lens. you don't "need" a tripod to take great pictures either...but damned if they arent a great piece of equipment to have. Nobody ever says, "I don't use tripods, im a natural stabilizing photographer"

 

[paigew]

The point is. As a new person to photography you do not need to run out and buy a flash to be able to take a good photograph. You should actually be able to take a good photograph anywhere, at any given time, of anything, using just a camera and a lens. And some sort (any sort) of light. Can you really call yourself a photographer if you can't?

 

[pixmedic]

The point is. As a new person to photography you do not need to run out and buy a flash to be able to take a good photograph. You should actually be able to take a good photograph anywhere, at any given time, of anything, using just a camera and a lens. And some sort (any sort) of light. Can you really call yourself a photographer if you can't?

i dont think anyone here is questing the ability for a picture to be taken without a flash and still be good.
I think however, you are mistaken in saying that you can take a "good" picture of anything at any time with just a camera and lens.
there are just situations where lighting conditions prohibit that from happening. if you don't believe me, shoot in the Tampa aquarium with no flash and see how well those pictures turn out. I promise you they will not be pretty no matter what equipment you are using. what little lighting there is in those tunnels, are very few blue and purple spotlights. with only a camera and lens, you have zero way to overcome that mixed color lighting, albeit it is very minimal lighting at best.

ISO does NOT do anything to fix shadows. ISO does NOT fix mixed temp lighting. Flash does.

being a good photographer is knowing when ambient light is sufficient to get good results, and when it is not.
I have to say, I have seen very little people photography taken in only ambient light that could not have benefited at least a little from some fill or catch lights.

obviously as a new photographer, someone doesn't NEED to run out and buy a flash, but the sooner they learn how to use one, the faster they will be able to compensate for all manner of lighting conditions.

 

[paigew]

i dont think anyone here is questing the ability for a picture to be taken without a flash and still be good.

That is actually the main question, is the statement the camera store owner made true :

Indoor, outdoor, he said it doesn't matter. If you want to take really great pictures, you need to get used to using a good flash.

I personally, think that is a false statement.

I think however, you are mistaken in saying that you can take a "good" picture of anything at any time with just a camera and lens.
there are just situations where lighting conditions prohibit that from happening. if you don't believe me, shoot in the Tampa aquarium with no flash and see how well those pictures turn out. I promise you they will not be pretty no matter what equipment you are using. what little lighting there is in those tunnels, are very few blue and purple spotlights. with only a camera and lens, you have zero way to overcome that mixed color lighting, albeit it is very minimal lighting at best.

In those cases I actually would use available light. We have an aquarium opening up this fall that I bought season passes to, and I can't wait to try out all the ideas I have. Can you get a well lit portrait in every situation without additional light? No, you can't. But can you document what is going around you in a beautiful way using ambient light only? Yes I believe you can. As long as there is enough light for your camera to focus. Actually, even if you have to manual focus! If there is light you CAN make an image.

 

[pixmedic]

I hope your aquarium is better lit than the one in Tampa.

If flash is not necessary, why are you starting to use it yourself? Seems like a lot of money to spend when you dont need it.

The store clerk is no more right with their statement of "needing" flash to take a good picture as you are with the opposite statement.

Flash is just another tool in photography. Like any other trade, you should know how to use all of the tools of your profession. A photographer that doesnt know how to use a flash is like a carpenter that doesnt know how to use a square.

Its not about natural light photographers - vs- flash photographers. (tho some people kinda make it that way sometimes)
Its just about being a photographer and knowing when to use what tools to get the shot right.

I would only agree with the store clerk in the sense that i think anyone that takes photography seriously, or anyone that is charging for their photography services should know how to use a flash, and have one available when they need it.

 

[cgipson1]

How about this?

If you want to take really great pictures ANYTIME ANYWHERE ANY SUBJECT you need to get used to using a good flash!

Like that lightning fast toddler at twilight? (oh darn.. it is blurry from that slow shutter speed the ambient light exposure required!)

Or that strongly backlit kiddo? (beautiful background exposure.. too bad you can't see his face!) or (WOW.. that background is totally blown out.. but you can see his face! )

Or that individual wearing a long brim hat that is throwing a strong shadow on the face? (I THINK I can see his eyes... maybe? Maybe I SHOULD have used flash!)

Or that little monster in the playground tunnel? (wow.. got a good exposure at ISO 12800 at F1.8 and 1/40... who cares if it is noisy, and a little blurred!)

Or INDOORs? Well duh.. just turn the lights on... and then turn it black and white to hide the poor white balance!

Or that cloudy, gloomy day with FLAT light? WOW... no shadows... no definition... no interest!

Same for shade... all blue and flat!

Yea.. crank up that ISO.. Open up that Aperture... slow down that shutter speed.... GOOD LUCK!

 

[rexbobcat]

The overexposed background look is very "in" right now, especially among children photographers.

The issue I have with a lot of natural light photos (even the well done ones) is that many of them lack effective subject-ground contrast, so everything just kind of blends together.

This is just talking about the recent faded blacks" fad

 

[cgipson1]

The overexposed background look is very "in" right now, especially among children photographers.

The issue I have with a lot of natural light photos (even the well done ones) is that many of them lack effective subject-ground contrast, so everything just kind of blends together.

This is just talking about the recent faded blacks" fad

I agree! I suspect that blown background popularity is due to massive exposure to images taken by "Natural Light Pro's" that don't have a clue how to balance a background and foreground exposure. Seems like a lot of poor photography has gotten popular that way! If you can't do it right.. do a lot of it, try to convince people that don't know any better that it is the "right way" and hope it catches on! lol!

 

[limr]

I hope your aquarium is better lit than the one in Tampa.

If flash is not necessary, why are you starting to use it yourself? Seems like a lot of money to spend when you dont need it.

The store clerk is no more right with their statement of "needing" flash to take a good picture as you are with the opposite statement.

Flash is just another tool in photography. Like any other trade, you should know how to use all of the tools of your profession. A photographer that doesnt know how to use a flash is like a carpenter that doesnt know how to use a square.

Its not about natural light photographers - vs- flash photographers. (tho some people kinda make it that way sometimes)
Its just about being a photographer and knowing when to use what tools to get the shot right.

I would only agree with the store clerk in the sense that i think anyone that takes photography seriously, or anyone that is charging for their photography services should know how to use a flash, and have one available when they need it.

Perhaps paigew is learning to use the flash not because she feels it's necessary but simply because she wants to. The owner said, "If you want to take really great pictures, you need to get used to using a good flash." Disagreeing with the statement is not the same as stating the opposite; it's just rejecting the premise that a good flash is a requirement for really great pictures. No one is saying flash is NEVER needed or NEVER necessary for a great picture, but simply that one can still become very skilled at taking very good images without using a flash.

Putting aside for the moment that not all of us are shooting portraits for a living, is saying that someone should know how to use all the tools of a profession is perhaps a stronger statement than you want to make? Are you saying then that all photographers, in order to make a living at one kind of photography, have to learn all the other tools that might not be as necessary for them? Are you going to learn wet plate collodion or tintype? Are you going to learn all about film development and wet printing even though all your gear is likely to be digital? How many portrait photographers know and regularly use the Sunny 16 rule? Perhaps landscape photographers are more familiar with it. But do they know how to use umbrellas or strobes or set up a product shoot? Doesn't everyone sort of settle into their niche, especially after going pro and focusing on only on a narrow kind of photography?

Is it limiting to not know how to use all the tools all the time? Of course it is. But who really knows how to use all the tools all of the time? No one. There are limits to everything.

Now back to that point that I put aside earlier: if someone is going to start charging for services that include perfectly-lit scenes that require flash lighting, then it certainly would be irresponsible to not understand how to artificially light that scene. But if someone isn't planning on making a living at portraiture or wedding photography, then perhaps it's not as dire a situation as the store owner was making it out to be.

 

[limr]

How about this?

If you want to take really great pictures ANYTIME ANYWHERE ANY SUBJECT you need to get used to using a good flash!

Like that lightning fast toddler at twilight? (oh darn.. it is blurry from that slow shutter speed the ambient light exposure required!)

Or that strongly backlit kiddo? (beautiful background exposure.. too bad you can't see his face!) or (WOW.. that background is totally blown out.. but you can see his face! )

Or that individual wearing a long brim hat that is throwing a strong shadow on the face? (I THINK I can see his eyes... maybe? Maybe I SHOULD have used flash!)

Or that little monster in the playground tunnel? (wow.. got a good exposure at ISO 12800 at F1.8 and 1/40... who cares if it is noisy, and a little blurred!)

Or INDOORs? Well duh.. just turn the lights on... and then turn it black and white to hide the poor white balance!

Or that cloudy, gloomy day with FLAT light? WOW... no shadows... no definition... no interest!

Same for shade... all blue and flat!

Yea.. crank up that ISO.. Open up that Aperture... slow down that shutter speed.... GOOD LUCK!

See, the thing I'm noticing is that most of the examples of the "You're a fool if you think you can get the shot without flash" examples are of people. And if you're after perfectly lit, perfectly sharp photos of children or family members or clients taking engagement or senior pictures, then sure. Learn how to use the flash. But there are other subjects to take pictures of, aren't there? And do they all have to be incredibly sharp and flooded with light all the time? Maybe I want shadows across the eyes sometimes. Maybe I want a gloomy look to an outdoor scene or...should I whisper this part now?...street photography?

I'm sure there are some people who completely deny any benefit at all of flash photography but I haven't seen anyone say that here. People have different goals and reasons for taking pictures, and they don't always coincide with the goals of commercial photography or other photographers.

 

[cgipson1]

Now back to that point that I put aside earlier: if someone is going to start charging for services that include perfectly-lit scenes that require flash lighting, then it certainly would be irresponsible to not understand how to artificially light that scene. But if someone isn't planning on making a living at portraiture or wedding photography, then perhaps it's not as dire a situation as the store owner was making it out to be.

I agree with the above! Please look at Paige's Website.. under Info / Pricing! pricing » Paige Wilks Photography | Austin TX Photographer | Weddings | Births | Portraits

Somehow I think a "PRO" should know how and when to use flash... and if they are charging, they are automatcally a PRO, right? (Even if their images are not up to what I could consider to be PRO quality! And that is a general remark.. not necessarily aimed at Paige! Aimed at all and any "PROs"!)

Or maybe there is a new breed of People getting married that don't expect "perfectly-lit scenes that require flash lighting" for their wedding shots?

If it is just a "mom" doing "mom" shots... then no... professional quality is not needed.... obviously... we see a lot of that (even with the "PRO's").. often you can't tell the difference between their "MOM" shots and their "PRO" work!

 

[limr]

I did look at her site and so much of her stuff is outdoors. She seems to have a grip on her lighting. And she's learning how to use flash to expand her services. Oddly enough, my favorite on her site is one of a father tossing his baby up in the air and the baby is suspended just above his outstretched arms. Both baby and father are silhouetted against a lovely sunset. Flash would have ruined that one completely.

I suppose the 'breed' of people who have the massive weddings and want the 'perfect' pictures demand the kind of lighting that is expected at weddings. That's what keeps them in business, right? But you're right - there is another 'breed' who will be content with...shall we say, non-traditional?...sorts of pictures (me being one of this odd breed. But I'm really not one for tradition ) And really, the massive weddings with the expensive photo package...that's a much newer phenomenon. Most people had very simple wedding shots years ago - often only one or two of the couple and maybe a few of the wedding party (which was a much smaller group.) My parents were married in the late 50s and had just a few portraits and a few candids during dinner. I'm sure flash was used, but I'm also positive there were a few 'coon eyes' in the bunch as well. Quite frankly, it's fascinating how much of a deal is made over that. I'd say wedding photography has gotten extremely more elaborate in the past 30 years or so, and with so many more opportunities to show examples of work on the Internet, perhaps it's also become a bit more standardized in terms of the kinds of lighting and 'look' that is expected.

But please, really - there's no reason for anyone to throw a wobbly and defend their flash to the death because no one was ever saying it is unnecessary. Everyone already agrees that what the camera store owner said is not accurate.

 

[marlenne63]

I use flash in about 60% of my shots but I believe that any beginner should first try their best to use the natural light and learn how to make decent pictures based on it. After some time, people can start using flash, but still, they should know first how natural light works and then add flash.

 

[minicoop1985]

I use flash in about 60% of my shots but I believe that any beginner should first try their best to use the natural light and learn how to make decent pictures based on it. After some time, people can start using flash, but still, they should know first how natural light works and then add flash.

That makes a lot of sense. Though I used a lot of flash at first, but now that I've been trying to become more serious about photography, I've been doing a lot more without it. Having a toddler, however, means I still use the popup flash on my E-450 about 50% the time.