Would it make sense to buy a flash? (3 Viewers)

[frinky]

In my dabblings a 580 in the hot shoe still generated substantial steel-eye in the birds I tried it on at 500mm. Having to use a proper flash bracket (and no way of using one easily on my 393 gimbal) only made it more awkward hence my lack of bothering.

I do use flash heavily for macro, though. It's still hard to get natural looking results, but with very small apertures etc there are far more occasions where it's necessary, and I find it easier to use on a smaller macro rig where flash is my main light source and can be diffused.

For the OP, IMO using flash for fill might be worth investigating, but using it in a subtle way to compensate for a slower lens would be very tricky.

 

[crs]

What "frinky" says about using a flash bracket in order to get easyer a naturaly lit photo is logical.

Does the shape of the flash bracket or the place were the flash is located play an important role in how the photo is lit?

Cristian

 

[H K]

I use mine a lot ,in the nikon gear pouch I have on my belt its ready . When the light needs fill flash I slide it on the hot shoe at .7 - 1.0 ev under . The SB900 zooms to 200 mm so I would say at lower ISO its good to 35 ft . It may help at manual /full power out to 40 - 50 ft with a 300 mm lens. Seems to work under tree canopies and back lit birds ,it brings up the color saturation and detail . There are a few fill shots in my gallery .
I'm sure Canon has a similar unit .

 

[Robin Edwards]

I think geting a flash is the easyest thing to do.

As Keith Reeder is saying most of the photos taken with flash have an unnatural look.
Using the flash and taking naturaly looking photos seems to be a more complicated problem.

Cristian

I spent a day with a guide in Brazil and coincidently he had identical set up to me with Canon 30D and 100-400mm with the exception that in the forest he used a light-weight diffuser placed in front of the camera flash rather than a seperate flash unit. He managed to get much more shooting opportunties than me but where my shots were acceptable, I prefered them because they looked more natural than those taken with flash.

Carlos has a great portfolio of superb birds phographed in Brazil but this one image illustrates the issue IMO. http://www.flickr.com/photos/brdigiscoping/3329119836/in/photostream

 

[Robin Edwards]

and the same bird taken at the same time without the benefit of flash.

Not sharp by a long way but in other ways more natural looking.
As with so many things in life, it's down to personal taste.

Robin

 

[AndyMc]

Yup, a typical example of 'over the top', together with a bit of oversharpening the highlights it looks to me.
Flash photography is another art in itself. If used correctly, then the casual observer cannot tell if flash has been used at all.

A little 'light' reading here .

The rest of the 'ebook' may be of interest to some as well.

 

[Denny Woodthorpe]

Flash backgrounds

and the same bird taken at the same time without the benefit of flash.

Not sharp by a long way but in other ways more natural looking.
As with so many things in life, it's down to personal taste.

Robin

The two photos demonstrate the main problem with using flash in the field. Black backgrounds. Because of the inverse square law, very little light reaches the background behind the bird, registering it very dark. Sometimes your camera will even expose for the background, completely over exposing the bird. You need a background close to the bird to give it sufficient exposure, but you then tend to get ugly shadows from the bird falling on it. This means you have to move the flash up high or well to the side, so the shadow does not appear in the frame. This in turn gives harsh shadows on the bird itself. So it goes on.
I have overcome these problems in the garden, with artificial backgrounds and twin flash units fired wirelessly, but it would be a completely different matter when stalking birds.
By the way, which would be considered more false - using a flash to provide a catchlight, or adding one in Photoshop?

 

[beakgeek]

I think there might be some confusion on the use of flash. Using a flash properly can make for some spectacular images that otherwise might have been deleted. Most photographers using flash and the better beemer use it as fill to make colors and textures pop. I use a Canon 580EX set to high speed sync, and shoot anywhere from -1 to -2 2/3 with great result.

If you use the flash as the main source of light you will get the black backgrounds mentioned, but not so if it used to fill in shadows.

All of the attached were taken with fill flash. When shooting a series of images that the flash did not fire there is a noticeable difference in the color and textures of the images.

 

[seaspirit]

By the way, which would be considered more false - using a flash to provide a catchlight, or adding one in Photoshop?

Why would using a flash be "false", its there because subject lighting puts it there? It's real! On the other hand adding something in PS that isn't there is manipulation. This is "false"! If it is ethical or permitted depends on your own perspective or the rules that apply -if any- for what the image is going to be used.

BTW, it is not trivial to add a realistic looking catchlight to an eye, as the rest of the lighting situation will not match it -otherwise there would be one-. Emphasizing a weak existing one is very doable, but adding a realistic looking fake catchlight is not just painting a white dot in the eye. Shape, position, and brightness have to be correct and match subject lighting. And this si the hard part.

Ulli

 

[iveljay]

Like all things photographic it is a technique to be learned and used when appropriate. It has certainly worked for me when faced with the bird/(or other wildlife) lurking in a bush - effectively bright bush/dark bird. As Terence has shown with his excellent shots, the trick is to balance both (a spot meter really helps).

Must get out my OM4, it was dead easy to use for this type of shot, (and I was able to focus spot on every time).

 

[mrmarklin]

The "black background" is a result of faulty camera settings, not the flash.

Just seems to me that any photographer should have all the tools in his/her arsenal that they feel a need for!

My son is a professional photographer shooting for a modelling agency. They only want natural light in outdoor photos, which are the vast majority. But he uses flash on every photo shoot! Because of technique, no one knows.

 

[ammadoux]

HERE the Better

thanks for the link, really an excellent read.

 

[mdb2]

thanks for the link as well. Regards. Mike

 

[Robin Edwards]

I am now starting to take flash much more seriously since undertaking a few basic experiments and have to confess at making some wrong assumptions in the past.

A few years back I visited the Large Blue butterfly colony in Somerset to firstly, see the beast for the first time and secondly, to get a few record shots. Having found a fresh Butterfly I was insensed as another photograhper with ring-flash muscled in and spooked my find that duly fled never to return. He soon left the site rather red-faced himself! This experiance tainted my view that flash photography was "high risk" in frightening subjects away and is likely to be the case with Butterflies but maybe not so with birds.

More recently I have tried a few shots in dull lighting conditions through my kitchen window under my bird feeders. Taking images through glass is hardly ideal and shutter speeds are still too slow but what it has shown is that so far, using the camera flash has added to the IQ but to my surprise, no birds have even flinched at the flash!

Now I still wouldn't use flash in a public hide or at a "twitch" but it is something I want to experiment more with. My only negative so far is that the catch-light in the bird's eye looks un-natural - is this something that others can comment on and how do you handle this?