Canon says more megapixels is bad...

MomentCapture said:
There is no errors in photography if it get's you the desired results, only different methods to get there.
No way would I use Fill flash as it's just plain ugly imo, a reflector would have been cumbersome and impractical to use and walk around with on my own, besides I prefer the look of back lighting so generally like to shoot into the light, the subject generally starts squinting if facing the sun, hence your just not going to get good expression.
Also I liked the composition how it was, if I turned him around the background wouldn't have looked anywhere near as good as there were allot more distracting elements, as well as not having any leading lines.

The bottom line is, with the 5Dii sensor I would have had to sacrifice something, as this wouldn't be an option.
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=898881
Click to expand...

Again, you don't know how to use fill flash properly if it looks ugly. ;)
 
MomentCapture said:
At the end of the day though, the argument to use on-camera flash for main or fill comes down to taste and opinion.
This is just my opinion, but for me personally it would kill my images, however that's just my taste, others here may like the look, and that just means we have differing taste, doesn't mean it's wrong for them, just wrong for me.
Click to expand...

I use fill flash along with post capture processing when photographing people and things when there's strong backlight and that seems reasonable enough to me especially when you consider that flash (and processing) can be turned up or down to suit the conditions and the look you're going for but to use blanket statements seems a snap argument to me and leads me to suspect that there's something wrong with your settings and/or technique.
 
MomentCapture said:
Joe, for starters just the catch-light of fill-flash is ugly, and how on earth would I be doing it wrong?
When I started out, I used nothing but flash for just about every shot I took, it was off camera flash with a large modifier attached to it, or if indoors it would be bounced, because direct flash just makes me want to puke, and I would personally only use it if I was desperate, i.e. I couldn't get the shot without it.

At the end of the day though, the argument to use on-camera flash for main or fill comes down to taste and opinion.
This is just my opinion, but for me personally it would kill my images, however that's just my taste, others here may like the look, and that just means we have differing taste, doesn't mean it's wrong for them, just wrong for me.
Click to expand...

none of this makes sense rhys

your processed image has fill flash in it but done digitally. How is this any different to doing the fill flash with a flash gun if you did it properly?

at the distance you are and the size of the guys eyes you wouldn't be seeing catchlights from the flash.

I'm not having a go at you for not liking flash but when the technique you have shown is adding fill digitally then it's no different to doing it with flash. If you really hated fill that much you'd surely compose your subject to get the most from natural light so as not to add any fill, flash or digital. You seem to be contradicting yourself

three people are now commenting that something must be wrong with your technique, so it stands to reason we might be right. Were trying to help you not slag you off.
 
Last edited:
The23rdman said:
Again, you don't know how to use fill flash properly if it looks ugly. ;)
Click to expand...

woof woof said:
I use fill flash along with post capture processing when photographing people and things when there's strong backlight and that seems reasonable enough to me especially when you consider that flash (and processing) can be turned up or down to suit the conditions and the look you're going for but to use blanket statements seems a snap argument to me and leads me to suspect that there's something wrong with your settings and/or technique.
Click to expand...

Well as I said, it's a matter of taste, and we all have differing taste, but if your sure that my technique sucks then please show one of your examples of fill flash, then I can see if I'm doing it wrong, or we just have differing taste.

Un-fortunately I can't post any examples as they have long been deleted of my PC.
 
joescrivens said:
none of this makes sense rhys

your processed image has fill flash in it but done digitally. How is this any different to doing the fill flash with a flash gun if you did it properly?

at the distance you are and the size of the guys eyes you wouldn't be seeing catchlights from the flash.

I'm not having a go at you for not liking flash but when the technique you have shown is adding fill digitally then it's no different to doing it with flash. If you really hated fill that much you'd surely compose your subject to get the most from natural light so as not to add any fill, flash or digital. You seem to be contradicting yourself

three people are now commenting that something must be wrong with your technique, so it stands to reason we might be right. Were trying to help you not slag you off.
Click to expand...

most cases of on camera flash will produce catchlights in the eye, but frankly its much easer to just edit those out than to digitally add fill to the whole face :)
 
Kurt.Paris said:
most cases of on camera flash will produce catchlights in the eye, but frankly its much easer to just edit those out than to digitally add fill to the whole face :)
Click to expand...

not debating that, but in the example posted above you'd struggle to see catchlights - look how small and half closed the eyes are
 
joescrivens said:
none of this makes sense rhys

your processed image has fill flash in it but done digitally. How is this any different to doing the fill flash with a flash gun if you did it properly?

at the distance you are and the size of the guys eyes you wouldn't be seeing catchlights from the flash.

I'm not having a go at you for not liking flash but when the technique you have shown is adding fill digitally then it's no different to doing it with flash. If you really hated fill that much you'd surely compose your subject to get the most from natural light so as not to add any fill, flash or digital. You seem to be contradicting yourself

three people are now commenting that something must be wrong with your technique, so it stands to reason we might be right. Were trying to help you not slag you off.
Click to expand...

Fill flash from a flashgun looks completely different, for a start you need to be careful of specular highlights (due to small light source, unlike the shaded ambient light), especially if the subject has a greasy complexion or if there is perspiration at all.

And as for catch lights, I was using a 50mm, there would be a big ugly catch light, right in the centre of the pupil.
 
Last edited:
MomentCapture said:
Fill flash from a flashgun looks completely different, for a start you need to be careful of specular highlights (due to small light source, unlike the ambient light), especially if the subject has a greasy complexion or if there is perspiration at all.

And as for catch lights, I was using a 50mm, there would be an ugly catch light, right in the centre of the pupil.
Click to expand...

you could also bounce the fill flash.... white reflector, handy wall etc...
 
Kurt.Paris said:
*shrug* I've had a 5dmk2 since launch so i am quite aware of its usual behaviour and that images on that thread are not representative.

Having said that i've seen images from Hassleblads misused or overprocessed which look roughly the same as a P&S.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what is hard to understand, every camera has different abilities and limits, so what you would term misuse for one camera, may not be misuse for another that has differing characteristics.
 
The23rdman said:
Is just not true. That camera had great low iso ability, but when you've used a Nikon full frame camera you'd laugh at how ludicrous a statement that is. And that was my camera you're using so I know!
Click to expand...

I was actually pointing out to sootchucker that you could get FF cameras with higher pixel counts than the Nikons.

And the D700, which you have, has got excellent high ISO capabilities due to its larger photodiodes but also lower MP counts.

.
 
MomentCapture said:
Fill flash from a flashgun looks completely different, for a start you need to be careful of specular highlights (due to small light source, unlike the shaded ambient light), especially if the subject has a greasy complexion or if there is perspiration at all.

And as for catch lights, I was using a 50mm, there would be a big ugly catch light, right in the centre of the pupil.
Click to expand...

nobody said your fill flash had to be from a small source, fill flash can use all kinds of light modifiers you know. Like I said if you can't get fill from a flash to look the same as your digital fill then you ARE doing it wrong

a "big ugly catch light" right in the centre of the pupil that on your pic would be completely minuscule you mean? and really, how difficult is it to clone out a tiny catchlight compared with the layers you have had to do to add fill flash (which you apparently hate but apply digitally anyway :cuckoo:)
 
Last edited:
MomentCapture said:
Well as I said, it's a matter of taste, and we all have differing taste, but if your sure that my technique sucks then please show one of your examples of fill flash, then I can see if I'm doing it wrong, or we just have differing taste.

Un-fortunately I can't post any examples as they have long been deleted of my PC.
Click to expand...

I haven't spent any time studying your technique, what caught my attention was your blanket statements. People disagree with your views and are telling you that there's something in this fish flash issue and I hope that this will pique your interest and encourage you to revisit and give it another go.
 
Kurt.Paris said:
you could also bounce the fill flash.... white reflector, handy wall etc...
Click to expand...

Yep, that's the only time I would use it, although that's not really fill, as fill light 'should' be on camera axis.
Now that your bouncing the flash, it really becomes the main light, giving the direction/quality of the light, the ambient light then effectively becomes fill.

In any case, it was impossible for me to use bounced light effectively in this case.
Also on a cautionary note, correct or uniform colour temperature can be difficult once you start bringing in multiple light sources with different temperatures.
 
MomentCapture said:
Yep, that's the only time I would use it, although that's not really fill, as fill light 'should' be on camera axis.
Click to expand...

That's an interesting definition. I'd always thought of fill flash as flash to lift the shadow areas to better match the backlighting so that the front of your subject and the background are equalised and looked at like that the exact sourse and axis doesn't seem to matter :cuckoo:
 
joescrivens said:
nobody said your fill flash had to be from a small source, fill flash can use all kinds of light modifiers you know. Like I said if you can't get fill from a flash to look the same as your digital fill then you ARE doing it wrong
Click to expand...

Are you talking about some kind of gary fong device?, if so, then I'll just have a slightly larger ugly catch light to remove.

If your talking off camera flash that can be place either low to avoid ugly catch lights, or placed high to create butterfly lighting, then it's no more practical than taking a reflector, in fact it's less practical.

joescrivens said:
a "big ugly catch light" right in the centre of the pupil that on your pic would be completely minuscule you mean? and really, how difficult is it to clone out a tiny catchlight compared with the layers you have had to do to add fill flash (which you apparently hate but apply digitally anyway :cuckoo:)
Click to expand...

Layers? just slide the fill light slider up in LR :cuckoo:
 
woof woof said:
That's an interesting definition. I'd always thought of fill flash as flash to lift the shadow areas to better match the backlighting so that the front of your subject and the background are equalised and looked at like that the exact sourse and axis doesn't seem to matter :cuckoo:
Click to expand...

Correct use of fill flash should be 'on-camera axis' to avoid the two suns look that can create unrealistic shadows.

Moving the flash off camera axis, you are effectively turning that flash into a main light, with the 'shadow ambient' becoming fill, and the sun acting as a hair or rim-light.
 
MomentCapture said:
Correct use of fill flash should be 'on-camera axis' to avoid the two suns look that can create unrealistic shadows.

Moving the flash off camera axis, you are effectively turning that flash into a main light, with the 'shadow ambient' becoming fill, and the sun acting as a hair or rim-light.
Click to expand...

if that flash is underpowered wrt the other flashes then it remains fill.
 
MomentCapture said:
Yep, that's the only time I would use it, although that's not really fill, as fill light 'should' be on camera axis.
Now that your bouncing the flash, it really becomes the main light, giving the direction/quality of the light, the ambient light then effectively becomes fill.
Click to expand...

of course fill flash can be bounced or diffused! It doesn't become the main light at all unless you expose that way making it the main light.

I think you might have some serious confusion in this area that you should revisit as it could massively help your photography
 
joescrivens said:
of course fill flash can be bounced or diffused! It doesn't become the main light at all unless you expose that way making it the main light.

I think you might have some serious confusion in this area that you should revisit as it could massively help your photography
Click to expand...

Correct placement of fill light is lighting 101, I suggest you look into it.
 
MomentCapture said:
Correct placement of fill light is lighting 101, I suggest you look into it.
Click to expand...

rhys, I really think you should stop being so defensive. Everyone here is disagreeing with what you are saying so it stands to reason you might be wrong.

Instead of being so cocky and dismissive, stop and listen for a minute and you might learn something. Not from me, but many other people on this forum have a ton of knowledge especially dean when it comes to lighting.

If you actually listen it will help your photography in the end. I can talk from experience because I have learnt a ton from the people on here by listening to them and not trying to imagine I know it all already.

anyway, thats just some friendly advice, do with it what you wish :thumbs:
 
^^^
Thanks Joe I appreciate your intention, and I understand how it may appear that I'm being cocky as you put it, but tbh I'm not trying to win some popularity contest here, if I'm truly believe I'm right then I will say so.


Below is one of my examples of using a flash off camera axis.
By moving the flash off camera axis, it is no longer a fill light. It is either a correctly exposed main/key light or if I lessen the power it is an underexposed main/key.

4e4da3dbed45a.jpg


There are times you place two light either side of your subject, but that's split lighting, and the fill still remains on camera axis, either flash or reflector.

I have lot's of learning material that talk of the correct placement of fill, however they are not freely distributable, but below is an example from some guy from lencarta.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_7l7etju38
 
joescrivens said:
ok heres a little test for you if you think fill flash is always so awful

here's two shots taken on the same day into the sun, one of them I used fill flash, the other I added the fill digitally like you as my flashgun didn't fire.

The question is -which is which and can you tell the difference?


Screen shot 2011-09-14 at 15.30.23 by MrJoeBoy, on Flickr


Screen shot 2011-09-14 at 15.30.15 by MrJoeBoy, on Flickr
Click to expand...

No I can't tell, both are good, however the subject isn't looking into the camera to you can't see an ugly catch light, so as they look so close, I'd take whichever didn't use a flash gun.

Note:
It also looks like the environment provides a fair amount of natural fill, especially as the sky looks fairly overcast, with what looks to be a partial break in the clouds creating the nice highlights.
 
Last edited:
MomentCapture said:
Well as I said, it's a matter of taste, and we all have differing taste, but if your sure that my technique sucks then please show one of your examples of fill flash, then I can see if I'm doing it wrong, or we just have differing taste.

Un-fortunately I can't post any examples as they have long been deleted of my PC.
Click to expand...

Here you go, fella. Lot's to learn.

http://neilvn.com/tangents/2011/02/04/available-light-vs-fill-flash/

http://neilvn.com/tangents/2009/09/24/fill-flash-or-not/

http://neilvn.com/tangents/2011/02/05/best-fill-flash-settings/
 
MomentCapture said:
No I can't tell, both are good, however the subject isn't looking into the camera to you can't see an ugly catch light, so as they look so close, I'd take whichever didn't use a flash gun.

Note:
It also looks like the environment provides a fair amount of natural fill, especially as the sky looks fairly overcast, with what looks to be a partial break in the clouds creating the nice highlights.
Click to expand...

If catchlights are your issue it makes so much more sense to use fill flash properly to maintain better IQ and then just remove the catchlights in post.
 
MomentCapture said:
^^^
Thanks Joe I appreciate your intention, and I understand how it may appear that I'm being cocky as you put it, but tbh I'm not trying to win some popularity contest here, if I'm truly believe I'm right then I will say so.


Below is one of my examples of using a flash off camera axis.
By moving the flash off camera axis, it is no longer a fill light. It is either a correctly exposed main/key light or if I lessen the power it is an underexposed main/key.

4e4da3dbed45a.jpg


There are times you place two light either side of your subject, but that's split lighting, and the fill still remains on camera axis, either flash or reflector.

I have lot's of learning material that talk of the correct placement of fill, however they are not freely distributable, but below is an example from some guy from lencarta.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_7l7etju38
Click to expand...

you're teaching us how to suck eggs, Rhys. Both Joe and I have plenty experience with OCF and it's merits, but on the fly it is sometimes essential to use on axis and on camera fill flash. Learning how to do it properly is one of the skills one must master in order to be a complete photographer. It is a tool in the tool box. Nothing more nor less.
 
well, there you go, so fill flash if used properly can have the required effect. I deliberately found examples that didn't have a catchlight so that you wouldn't use that as your way of finding out. I wanted you to comment on the fill itself

If catchlights really bother you there is no reason why they can't be cloned out or even a larger source for the flash so the catchlight is more subtle.

Personally I really like a catchlight as without them I think eye's look lifeless.

This example was with a bounced flash and the catchlight makes the eyes in my opinion. This wasn't fill flash in this instance - it was the main light.


IMG_9998 by MrJoeBoy, on Flickr
 
The23rdman said:
If catchlights are your issue it makes so much more sense to use fill flash properly to maintain better IQ and then just remove the catchlights in post.
Click to expand...

I hate messing with the eyes as they are soo critical, as to me it just doesn't look natural (no-one else would probably notice, but I know it's been doctored), also allot of the time, the fill flash will mix with a natural catch light, and then it gets messy.
 
The23rdman said:
you're teaching us how to suck eggs, Rhys. Both Joe and I have plenty experience with OCF and it's merits, but on the fly it is sometimes essential to use on axis and on camera fill flash. Learning how to do it properly is one of the skills one must master in order to be a complete photographer. It is a tool in the tool box. Nothing more nor less.
Click to expand...

Well then people here should know where a fill light is supposed to go.
 
joescrivens said:
well, there you go, so fill flash if used properly can have the required effect. I deliberately found examples that didn't have a catchlight so that you wouldn't use that as your way of finding out. I wanted you to comment on the fill itself
Click to expand...

Are you able to post a sample SOOC of the one with no fill flash?
 
MomentCapture said:
I hate messing with the eyes as they are soo critical, as to me it just doesn't look natural (no-one else would probably notice, but I know it's been doctored), also allot of the time, the fill flash will mix with a natural catch light, and then it gets messy.
Click to expand...

That's daft. What if you're using a multiple light set-up? You have multiple catchlights. Telling me the classic butterfly lighting should be dumped because it makes eyes look messy?
 
The23rdman said:
That's daft. What if you're using a multiple light set-up? You have multiple catchlights. Telling me the classic butterfly lighting should be dumped because it makes eyes look messy?
Click to expand...

Butterfly lighting with fill (reflector) creates a nice clamshell catch light, that's completely different from a sky catch light mixed with a crappy white dot in the middle of the pupil from direct fill flash, the catch light just looks so un-natural/weird being right in the centre of the eye.
 
MomentCapture said:
Are you able to post a sample SOOC of the one with no fill flash?
Click to expand...

nope, you'll have to take my word for it. Those pics are a few months old and I don't keep the unedited files once i'm done with them, my life is too short to revisit old files :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top