why do papz diect their flash at their subject?

Err.... have we established why a press photographer would use direct flash to photo a burning building yet?
 
T'would depend on a number of reasons. If s/he wanted to include someone or something in front of the building, perhaps to give the shot more depth, flash may be needed or the subject would be silhouetted by the back lighting. Because a fire is such a difficult thing to judge, exposure-wise, it would make sense to shoot a few shots at different exposures, some with flash, some without (assuming you're close enough). You may only be allowed a minute or two to shoot, so try a bit of everything.

And maybe you simply forgot to turn it off...:D
 
Teflon-Mike said:
Err.... have we established why a press photographer would use direct flash to photo a burning building yet?
Click to expand...

Well, at night, the flames would effectively give a sort of contre jour effect, leaving the building's façade in the dark so a burst of flash would bring out some details that might otherwise be left in the shadows...:p
 
jon ryan said:
No reply? I mean, this shot has to have been published for editorial purposes, not just illustrative ones, to qualify as a press photo - you do understand that, don't you?



How do you know one can? As before, you are arguing in exactly the way creationalists and people who believe we are ruled by lizards do. You put up an argument and then say ' nyah nyah, you can't prove me wrong!'. Well, as my wise old pet unicorn pointed out when we were flying to Jupiter to celebrate my 200th birthday yesterday, a negative cannot be proved.

The other problem is that you are in the position of a eunuch giving advice on sex. If you are incapable of doing it yourself, how is your opinion to be trusted?

You have cherry-picked a single shot from 133 ( one from 133!) to try and illustrate your hypothesis, but have failed to produce any shots of your own to show how easy you find it to take such shots.

Perhaps you think your work isn't as good as that of a pap?
Click to expand...

Is the internet not a published editorial source - or are you changing the rules on that now?


My work is all around if you go look.
 
Last edited:
Nod said:
Well, at night, the flames would effectively give a sort of contre jour effect, leaving the building's façade in the dark so a burst of flash would bring out some details that might otherwise be left in the shadows...:p
Click to expand...

...and it could also illuminate clouds of smoke and jets of water.

Need any more? ;)
 
tiler65 said:
Is the internet not a published editorial source - or are you changing the rules on that now?
.
Click to expand...

So anyone who puts work on the internet is a press photographer ? :shrug:
 
snipershooter said:
I thought that external flashes were on good when bounced off a wall but i see professional photographers especially papz direct the flash at the subject? I dont know if they do this *** of the shadow?
Click to expand...

as well as the points already made - its a bit of a fallacy to say that extrernal flash is only good when bounced

Its preferable in many situations to bounce it, but other options include using it as fill , using a diffuser for a softer light, and using it to freeze action where that is more important than artistic lighting
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top