Have better cameras pushed flashes out of the picture?

Steve Noel

In Memorium
Location
Casey County, KY
Asked to set up the camera for some family pictures yesterday (Thanksgiving 2016), I pulled out the FL36 with homemade bounce defuser. I first did some test/setup shots to get the light balance that I wanted. It's been a long while, and out of practice. I just could not get it the way I wanted, without an elaborate setup. Turned off the flash, and proceeded.
E-m5, 20mm aperture priority, tripod mounted, auto ISO 800 limited. I pulled it into FastStone, added a bit of contrast, cropped, and down sampled to 1024, on the long side.
Please understand, that this is not presented as professional portrait. It's a family get together, with edit done on an old Sony laptop, by an old man with the beginning of a cataract in the "good" eye, and one totally messed up. But, to my "good eye", looks quite pleasing. A credit to the equipment, not the photographer.
The flash is going back in the drawer.
JO.JPG
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Good ambient light shot.

You'll note that you're getting two different color tones left and right - warmer on the subject's right side - cooler to the left. A powerful enough flash could overcome that. Also the shadowing on the face, the hair is lost in shadows against her outfit - a bit of fill could knock that out and bring back some details.

To me, lighting is about taste. Some shots beg for ambient - especially if there is already sufficient source lighting that adding more doesn't really do anything. Stage Photography is one example. For portraits, where I definitely admit I need more help, I'm picking up more and more ideas about One-Light and Two-Light setups as part of my 2017 Personal Goals. As an example - getting the light off the hot-shoe and putting it 45/45 (45 degrees to Photographer's Left and 45 degrees down towards subject) gets you some really interesting and compelling lighting. You can easily do that if the flash supports wireless TTL firing from the body's built-in, or using a TTL synch cable. Adding a modifier to the flash like a diffuser or a softbox gives you even more control. All of that is easily carried in the bag and doesn't add too many more steps to your setup.
 
I agree with your analysis, in theory. But, the occasional picture taker, without extra money to spend, that only has the choice of, to flash or not to flash, has better options today, than even 5 years ago. Better sensors, especially low light, at least for me, have liberated me from the limitations of, must have flash. Yes, good usage of flash has real benefits, if you have good equipment and an understanding of lighting. I have done the "setup", that you have described, with very good results. But, I don't have to, to get "acceptable" results to make my family happy. And (as a tired old man),that is my real goal.
 
I do have a question for admin. Why do pics have a degraded appearance after posting, than they do in the PP app, or Windows viewer? They have lost that "alive" look, that they are processed for.
 
I do have a question for admin. Why do pics have a degraded appearance after posting, than they do in the PP app, or Windows viewer? They have lost that "alive" look, that they are processed for.
When uploading a file as an attachment, IF the width/height exceeds a certain limit, OR the size in bytes exceeds a certain limit the forum software will rescale and compress the image. It generally looks poor compared with the original.

As to flash: I rarely use it, I avoid if at all possible. The reason: shooting portraits my subjects knew that "flash was coming" and braced for it. They could not relax and be natural.

My daughter at a local restaurant, diffuse lighting through the window curtains.

24562446705_d5b023f9be_b.jpg
Wide-Open, Sonnar 198xxxx
by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

This is with a Leica M9, ISO 160, 5cm F1.5 Sonnar wide-open, 1/30th second. I had built this lens to sell and fund a purchase of a camera. After seeing this picture- I took the sale down and still have this lens. One person overseas was disappointed, so I made them one just like it and sold it for less.
 
And a shot at ISO2500. In this case shooting with ISO400 film would have been difficult. The yellow filter would come off if shooting B&W to pick up a stop. Using a flash in a setting like this would change the mood- at least in my experience taking pictures of family and friends.

21912875900_9c3c8d8025_o.jpg
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
Window Shades by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

Same lens, yellow filter, wide-open, 1/30th second.
 
flash certainly has it's place. But with modern cameras being as good as they are, I think the flash is now relegated to off-camera use for effect and to be used those skilled at the art of off-camera flash. The results are fab, but natural light (when it's good) is my preferred mode of shooting.
 
It's not so much a question of flash vs. no flash, but rather of "good light" vs. "not so good light." The advantage of flash is that when properly used, you can create "good light" where there may be none.

I'll give two examples. Both are interior shots (of family, taken during holiday reunions), but the first one was done with natural window light. In this case, any use of flash would have probably harmed the photo significantly:

16233939556_f1a6f2f067_b.jpg
Paloma y Mariana
by Antonio Ramirez, on Flickr

The second shot was done in the same place, but at night. Had I not used flash, the sole source of light would have been flat overhead lighting, which given the high ISO performance of modern cameras would have been sufficient, but would have resulted in rather ugly and unflattering lighting. Instead, a single off-camera flash bounced against an umbrella, placed left of camera, was used:

11547447723_4e583e972e_b.jpg
Paloma y Marianne
by Antonio Ramirez, on Flickr

While the high ISO capabilities of modern cameras give us significant flexibility, the use of flash should not be discounted.

Cheers,

Antonio
 
Good point Antonio...and examples. Maybe as gearheads, many of us here have been trained to look for "enough" light instead of seeking GOOD light. With greater high ISO performance, we don't often run out of enough light anymore to NEED a flash for sufficient light. But now it's up to us as photographer's to learn about GOOD light. What light angles are most flattering....what time of day is best for light....what are some simple ways to CONTROL the available natural light.
 
Flash can also help with balancing foreground/subject brightness versus background brightness.

Say, you have a bright background (which would pull the viewer's eye away from your subject)... In that case throwing a bit more light on your foreground would allow you to lower your exposure value - thus effectively "darkening" the background while still keeping a good exposure on your subject...

(Having said all that, shooting mostly landscapes/nature I never use flash either. And on the few occasions where I could need it, I have trouble "previsualizing" the effect of the flash. A constant light source would make that easier. That - or practice :) )
 
There is a big difference between the on-camera flash that was used by most people and studio flash.

On-camera flash has definitely been pushed out by better cameras.

Polaroid used to sell a flash called a "Wink-Light" for use with their high-speed black&light film. It was literally a strong flashlight bulb that "winked" as you took the shot, nice fill-flash. It was an incandescent bulb, not a flash-tube. A LED based light on the camera would perform a similar function for fill light.
 
Back
Top