Using direct flash technique

badboy1984

badboy1984

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,529
Edit My Images
No
When I usually use flash gun i tend to bounce my flash to light subject and to avoid shadow behind the subject etc.

When I watching the news i saw alot of press reporter just point their flash gun directly to the subject and just shoot away.

The shots must be decent enough for them to do the job and I'm sure they won't have time to shoot in manual or mess around with the setting.

What kind of technique or setting do they use to get a decent shot?
 
Don't forget they're outside too. You can bounce flash off the ceiling but you need a lot of power to bounce it off the sky.

As above it's just fill and should be barely visible in the results.
 
I know they probably use fill flash outdoor but i saw many of those reporters in a press conference indoor they point the flash directly to the subject and just trigger happy. The flash must be harsh when directly pointed to the subject.
 
badboy1984 said:
I know they probably use fill flash outdoor but i saw many of those reporters in a press conference indoor they point the flash directly to the subject and just trigger happy. The flash must be harsh when directly pointed to the subject.
Click to expand...

Depends on the camera, camera mode, and the flash. Most systems will automatically meter the flash to balance with the ambient (fill flash) in aperture priority. By balancing with the ambient it's not nearly as harsh. And with a little -FEC it can be even less apparent while still preventing harsh shadows.

That said, their job is journalism, not portrait photography. Getting the (a) shot is more important than anything else... I'm certain they will accept a harsher flash exposure before missing the shot.
 
You have a point actually about getting the shot instead of perfect portrait.

Maybe i just think too much lol.
 
badboy1984 said:
You have a point actually about getting the shot instead of perfect portrait.

Maybe i just think too much lol.
Click to expand...

Have you seen the quality of tabloid news / paparazzi magazine photography? Most of it could have been taken by a 14 year old. When 'getting the shot' pays the mortgage and 'getting a better shot' makes no difference, it's a no-brainer.

When you're watching photographers for technique, watch the one's who's work you like.
 
Phil V said:
Have you seen the quality of tabloid news / paparazzi magazine photography? Most of it could have been taken by a 14 year old. When 'getting the shot' pays the mortgage and 'getting a better shot' makes no difference, it's a no-brainer.

When you're watching photographers for technique, watch the one's who's work you like.
Click to expand...

14 year old! more like 8 year old.Get it right phil.:thumbs:
 
I also frequently use bounce flash which is OK as long as the ceiling is low. However one of the solutions if you have a high ceiling is what I use now, an Opteka hood which using velcro attaches to the top of the flash and reflects the flash forward, it works very well.:)
 
Press photography. Easiest job in the world. You've summed it up perfectly: just point and shoot away. Any eight-year-old could do it. (So, um, why don't you??? Seeing's as you know how easy it is an' all :thinking: Money for old rope, innit?)
 
I'm just wondering about press photography thats all .......... i don't really pay attention to the shots but just wondering thats all.
 
jon ryan said:
Press photography. Easiest job in the world. You've summed it up perfectly: just point and shoot away. Any eight-year-old could do it. (So, um, why don't you??? Seeing's as you know how easy it is an' all :thinking: Money for old rope, innit?)
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone's slagging off press photography (alright some people might have a bit).

I was definitely slagging off a particular genre of paparazzi shot. Not suggesting it is easy, but the whole paparazzi industry (including the readers of the crappy magazines) disgusts me in every way, not just on a photographic level.

I'm also in awe of great news photographers - you can't pin a standard on an entire industry, that'd be like categorising McDonalds with Michelin starred restaurants as they're all the 'catering industry'. There's good and bad everywhere (and appalling and awesome).
 
Phil V said:
I don't think anyone's slagging off press photography (alright some people might have a bit).

I was definitely slagging off a particular genre of paparazzi shot. Not suggesting it is easy, but the whole paparazzi industry (including the readers of the crappy magazines) disgusts me in every way, not just on a photographic level.

I'm also in awe of great news photographers - you can't pin a standard on an entire industry, that'd be like categorising McDonalds with Michelin starred restaurants as they're all the 'catering industry'. There's good and bad everywhere (and appalling and awesome).
Click to expand...

With you all the way, Phil. Paparazzi - those who chase celebs in the hope of getting a look up their skirts - are utter scum and undeserving of the title 'photographer. Or 'homo sapiens' come to that.

Real press photography can occasionally be a bit trickier than it may appear to the amateur eye.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top